8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the Surveillance Use Policy and related documents.
Tabled 8-0-1 (Toomey ABSENT)

Dec 9, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

In accordance with the Surveillance Technology Ordinance, Chapter 2.128 of the Municipal Code, I am transmitting for review and discussion the Surveillance Use Policy and related documents.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

a. Surveillance Ordinance_All Submissions_Cover Letter 120919

b. Surveillance Use Policy 120919

c. Surveillance Tech Impact Reports 120919

d. Annual Surveillance Report 120919

e. Surveillance Use Policy Order

Agenda Item Number 8A     Dec 9, 2019
ORDERED: Pursuant to the Surveillance Technology Ordinance, Chapter 2.128 of the Municipal Code, the City Council goes on record approving the City Manager’s Surveillance Use Policy.

f. Surveillance Tech Impact Report Order

g. Annual Surveillance Report Order

16. A communication transmitted from City Manager Louis A. DePasquale and Assistant City Manager Community Development Iram Farooq, relative to the Incentive Zoning Nexus and Jobs Linkage Study.
Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0

Dec 9, 2019
To the Honorable, the City Council:

I, along with Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq, are pleased to transmit the Incentive Zoning Nexus and Jobs Linkage Study (the “Nexus Study”) completed by a consultant team led by Karl F. Seidman. The study was commissioned in Fall 2018 pursuant to provisions in the Zoning Ordinance which call for a reexamination of the incentive zoning contributions and housing contribution rate to be initiated 3 years from the adoption of an amendment to the housing contribution rate in the Ordinance. The incentive zoning provisions were last amended by the City Council in September 2015.

The Nexus Study analyzes the impact of projected non-residential development on the need for new low, moderate, and middle-income affordable housing. The study also analyzes the jobs that will be generated by new non-residential development, and the need for occupational training for low- and moderate-income residents to meet resident employment goals. The Nexus Study recommends a new contribution rate for housing of $19.10 (an increase from the current rate of $17.10) per square-foot of new nonresidential development with $1.00 annual increases for four years and annual CPI increases. A jobs linkage contribution is not recommended.

There are no new recommended policy changes to the incentive provisions since significant changes were made to the ordinance when it was revised in 2015. These changes included expanding the types of nonresidential uses subject to the incentive provisions and applying the provisions to all non-residential development over 30,000 square feet rather than just to developments receiving certain special permits.

The Incentive Zoning Ordinance was originally adopted in 1988 so that that new non-residential developments would make contributions to the Affordable Housing Trust to address their impact on the need for affordable housing. The Ordinance was adopted following an initial nexus study which established the impact of new development on housing needs. This nexus was updated in a 2002 in another study which recommended an increase in the contribution rate, however that recommendation was not adopted. The most recent nexus study was completed in 2015 and led to amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which significantly increased the housing contribution rate and expanded the commercial developments subject to the incentive provisions.

The 2015 amendments significantly increased the rate, nearly tripling it from $4.58 to $12 per square foot, and also provided for annual $1 increases for three years in addition to annual CPI increases. The contribution rate is currently $17.10 per square-foot.

We are now just beginning to see the impact of the 2015 changes as the first contribution under the 2015 incentive provisions was received earlier this year. Since then, more than $12 million in incentive contributions has been received in 2019. This recent activity is a dramatic change when considering that incentive contributions totaled nearly $5.5 million from the inception of the ordinance in 1988 to 2015. If developments that have received building permits are complete in the next three years, an additional $16,000,000 is expected, a rate of close to $6 million per year.

To update the basis for the incentive provisions and evaluate the housing contribution rate, the Nexus Study projects commercial development over the next 10 years. New development is projected by commercial sector and by the type and wage levels of new employment. Estimating the number of workers who will seek and need affordable housing in Cambridge, the study finds a need for 722 new housing units for low, moderate, and middle-income units over 10 years. Projected new development over the same period is 5.84 million square feet. Looking at the subsidy needed to create this housing in relation to projected new development results in a maximum calculated housing contribution rate of $33.34 per square foot of new development.

This is the first time that a jobs linkage component has been studied in Cambridge. The Nexus Study estimates that new residential development is expected to generate 5,932 low and middle skilled jobs.

Depending on the goal for resident employment, the demand for occupational training could range from 593 jobs (10% resident employment) to 2,966 jobs (50% resident employment). Existing skills training program have a capacity to train roughly 1,080 to 1,300 Cambridge residents over 10 years. That results in a funding gap which translates into a maximum determined employment contribution of $0.82 to $2.20 per square foot. This could result in funding ranging from about $500,000 to $1,000,000 each year.

Implementation of a jobs linkage provision would require approval of special state legislation to create such a program. Given the lengthy process likely needed for this, and the alternative that anticipated proceeds could more quickly be provided through the City budget, creating a jobs linkage provision is not recommended at this time. Further, with the funding needed to mitigate the impact of new development on affordable housing significantly greater than that needed to address the impact on employment, it would allow for more funding from new development to be directed to affordable housing where it is most needed.

While the Nexus Study determined a maximum determined contribution rate of $33.34 for housing and $2.20 for employment, it noted that such a change could have a significant impact on Cambridge’s ability to attract new commercial development and tenants. The Nexus Study recommends that the housing contribution rate be increased to $19.10 now. This increase would increase the difference between our housing contribution and similar impact fees in neighboring communities. Boston’s combined rate is $10.81 per square foot ($9.03 for housing plus $1.78 for jobs), and Somerville’s combined rate is $12.46 per square foot ($10.00 for housing plus $2.46 for jobs). Setting the contribution rate too high could impact development decisions and push commercial development to neighboring communities, where we might still see the impacts of new development but not benefit from funding mitigation from new developments nor from the benefits of an expanded tax base over time. We should also note that the City often seeks to advance other policy goals and public improvements by negotiating funding commitments and/or other mitigation measures as part of the approval process for large commercial developments, which also add to the cost of development in the city.

After the recommended initial increase in the housing contribution to $19.10, the Nexus Study recommends that the rate be increased by $1.00 plus an adjustment for changes in the CPI each year. The $1.00 increase is recommended to last for four years, while the annual CPI adjustment would continue indefinitely. These recommendations would allow for predictable increases over a defined period of time that the business community could anticipate and would likely put the contribution rate at more than $25 within five years.

A final recommendation in the Nexus Study is to increase the period between reevaluations of the incentive zoning provisions and housing contribution rate from an interval of three years, as currently required in the Ordinance, to five years. It takes several years to fully assess the impact of changes to the housing contribution rate and any other aspects of the incentive provisions given the time needed to advance and complete new commercial development projects. Three years is a very short time interval to fully assess the impact of any changes. As noted above, we are now just beginning to see the completion of new developments that are subject to the 2015 changes. A five-year interval is also consistent with the time period for reviewing the Inclusionary Provisions in the Ordinance.

Funds generated by the Ordinance are used by the Affordable Housing Trust to fund its affordable housing efforts. We will also submit the completed Nexus Study to the Affordable Housing Trust for review and discussion at its next meeting, January 29th.

We think the recommended initial and continuing increases in the housing contribution rate are advisable given the results of the Nexus Study. Development has not slowed as a result of the 2015 amendments, and the expansion of the applicability of the incentive zoning provisions following the 2015 amendments has already resulted in a substantial new source of funding for the Trust, which will continue to grow as new developments move forward. The recommended increase of $2.00 per square foot with $1.00 per annual increases for four years, along with CPI adjustments would ensure that this expanded source of funding for affordable housing will continue to grow and be a resource for the City as we work to address the impact of new development and new jobs coming into the city and metro region. We look forward to discussing the Nexus Study with the City Council and are prepared to draft a zoning petition to advance the study’s recommendations.

Very truly yours, Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager

4. A communication was received from City Clerk, Anthony I. Wilson, transmitting a memorandum from Councillor Mallon, regarding the Tobin Montessori/VLUS building proposals.

Dec 3, 2019
Dear Colleagues,

I want to thank the City and School staff, as well as the architects from Perkins Eastman, for the special presentation of the Tobin Montessori/VLUS building proposals to the City Council and School Committee at Monday evening’s roundtable discussion. This was an important component to a critical community process, and it was informative for all who attended.

As we were time limited, I wanted to enter my concerns to my colleagues, city and school staff and the residents as part of the public record via this communication.

Overall, I have concerns about doubling the size of this school campus from 600 students to 1200 students. Before we agree to double the number of students on this site, we need to fully understand the future and the capacity of the two swing spaces that have been utilized for close to a decade while the Cambridge Street and Putnam Avenue campuses have been under construction. The Longfellow School has served as an elementary school swing space for Dr. M.L.K Jr. and King Open Schools, and the Kennedy-Longfellow School has served as an Upper School swing space for PAUS and CSUS. Once the Tobin/VLUS campus is complete, what is the future and what is the capacity for these swing spaces? Even if we fully renovate an elementary school, such as the Graham and Parks, we would not use both swing spaces. As discussed during the Universal Pre-K conversation on Monday evening, could the Longfellow School serve as the pre-school site that is being planned for the Tobin site? There are a great many factors that I don’t feel confident we have the answers to at this time, and I would urge the City and the Schools to do that facilities inventory and provide us with the information so we can feel confident with a decision.

It was stated Monday evening, that the Cambridge Street and Putnam Avenue Upper Schools were built without significant space to grow, particularly in the middle schools. This is a considerable problem and a mistake not to be made again. We should be planning for *some* growth so that we can remove the unfair “caps” in 5th grade in the VLUS feeder schools to ensure socio-economic equity among the Upper Schools. However, I am concerned about adding the bulk of the middle school population growth into one school and planning to increase the school size by 50% (300 students to 450).

The Vassal Lane Upper School is already the largest in the district and houses the entire 6-8th grade SEI population as well as several other complex programs. Given the complexity of this Upper School already, it seems unwise to plan for all middle school growth in this proposed building.

Maintaining the Open Space at this site and ensuring at least two fields than can be played on concurrently is critical. Losing 1+ acres on this site, and in particular going from three baseball fields to one baseball field and one soccer field – that cannot be used at the same time – is not acceptable for this site location and alternatives that will allow for two fields that can be used concurrently should be found. This open space and playing fields serve an important function for the students at Tobin Montessori/VLUS and should be maintained. Additionally, on nights and weekends, these fields serve as a community open space resource for the many families and residents who live in the neighborhood.

As my colleagues mentioned, the design should not include any surface parking, all parking should be planned for underground. This will help maintain the open space. Additionally, we need to plan the appropriate number of parking spaces to match the planned number of adults in the building who need parking. As we know, the majority of our teachers do not live in Cambridge largely to the high cost of housing and parking is a challenge at all of our schools.

As a City, we are proposing to spend close to a quarter of a billion dollars on this project, we should take the time to look at this project in relation to other goals of the city and have a more holistic process to ensure a thoughtful outcome that meets the need of the neighborhood and the City. I look forward to City staff and Perkins Eastman continuing to engage with the neighborhood, reviewing feedback from the community as well as the feedback they received on Monday night, and updating the options accordingly.

Alanna Mallon
City Councillor

O-2    Dec 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
VICE MAYOR DEVEREUX
WHEREAS: Boston recently enacted new regulations on short-term rentals which only allow listings from units or buildings that are owner-occupied for at least nine months out of the year; and
WHEREAS: This law restricts investors and absentee landlords from depleting the rental housing stock in favor of more lucrative short-term propositions; and
WHEREAS: As part of a settlement stemming from Airbnb’s legal challenge to these regulations, which are among the toughest in the country, the company agreed to display a registration number on all listings, and to share data on hosts with Boston so that the city can properly enforce the new law; and
WHEREAS: Last week, Airbnb deactivated many thousands of non-compliant Boston listings from its website ahead of a Dec 1, 2019 deadline; and
WHEREAS: Airbnb has also reached settlements with Portland, Miami Beach, and New York City that have required the company to share data with the municipalities and remove illegal listings from its website; and
WHEREAS: Just 257 applications had been received by the City of Cambridge as of July 2018, and short-term rental sites had not shared any data with the city up to that point, making it very difficult to enforce the regulations; and
WHEREAS: The City Council has asked (POR 2019 #288) the City Manager to look into a similar requirement as Boston that would require short-term rental sites like Airbnb to publicly list whether or not the unit is registered, but a response has not yet been received; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide updated data on enforcement of the city’s short term rental regulations, including (but not limited to) the number of units that have registered with the city, the number of applications that have been rejected, the number of inspections that have been undertaken by the Inspectional Services Department, and the total number of units listed on various short term rental websites including Airbnb; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to take all available steps, including legal action, to ensure compliance with the law; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on this matter by the end of January 2020.

TEXT OF COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report #1
The Health and Environment Committee held a public meeting on Nov 12, 2019 at 5pm to discuss the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan task force.

Present: Devereux, Zondervan
Absent: Carlone, Kelley, Mallon

Present at the hearing were Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Committee, Vice Mayor Devereux, Co-Chair of the Committee, Lisa Peterson, Deputy City Manager, Owen O’Riordan, Commissioner of the Department of Public Works, Catherine Woodbury, Department of Public Works Project Manager, David Lefcourt, City Arborist, John Nardone, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Works, Andrew Putnam, Superintendent of Urban Forestry and Landscape, Eric Kramer, Principal at Reed-Hilderbrand, Gary Hilderbrand, Principal at Reed Hilderbrand, Stephanie Hsia, Landscape Architect at Reed-Hilderbrand, Matthew Soule, Project Manager at Reed-Hilderbrand, and Dan Totten.

Also present were John Pitkin, 18 Fayette Street, Peter Cohen, 11 Donnell Street, Steven Nutter, Executive Director of Green Cambridge, Mike Nakagawa, 51 Madison Avenue, and Jeremy Kepner, 95 Richdale Avenue.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing at 5:07 PM and briefly reviewed the call of the meeting. He mentioned that the hearing will be recorded both publicly and privately and also televised. He mentioned that Councillor Carlone was feeling ill and would be unable to attend the hearing.

DPW Commissioner O’Riordan began the hearing with a brief update from the city. Commissioner O’Riordan noted that the city had hoped to have had the report in the public domain by mid-summer of 2019, and apologized for the delay. He said that the report had been posted on the city’s website earlier that afternoon, but the appendices had yet to go up. He said that the primary reason for the delay was that it was a much bigger project than anyone had anticipated at the outset. He said that the report is almost 300 pages long, with another 700 pages of appendices. He said that it is a comprehensive report due to the expertise that the consultants brought to the task, as well as the challenges and questions posed by the public and members of the task force throughout.

Commissioner O’Riordan said there would be at least two more meetings: one with the task force in early December, and then a public meeting. He noted that they anticipate only needing these two meetings, but they are willing to have an additional meeting of the task force if the need arises.

Commissioner O’Riordan said that this is a project that has been data-driven, based in science, and has incorporated a significant amount of community input. He noted that there is an enormous amount of information in the report. He said they have involved soil scientists, climate scientists, arborists, engineers, planners, and communication and graphic design teams on this report. The consultants used LiDAR data, GIS information, and ground-truthing from over 200 sites. He said that this is all being done in conjunction with Envision Cambridge, the Climate Vulnerability Assessment, and the Climate Resiliency Task Force. He said that they are proposing to do something slightly different once the current ordinance sunsets in March 2020. He said he thinks their proposal will encourage people to replant if they do end up taking down trees. He said that regulations on private property are very challenging and more community engagement is needed.

Erik Kramer of Reed-Hilderbrand gave a presentation. The presentation is attached to these minutes. Erik reiterated that this report builds on the work of the vulnerability assessment and Envision Cambridge. The goal is to understand the risks to the urban forest and model and propose alternative ways of responding. There are a broad range of proposals: policies, practice, education, and outreach. He said the task force was an incredible part of the process. They met together 11 times over the course of a year and also had two public meetings. He said that other cities are looking to Cambridge as an example, and the city has made an unparalleled commitment.

Mr. Kramer noted that the task force was made up of many different groups, businesses, and institutions within the city.

Mr. Kramer began discussing the findings of the report. In 2009, based on UVM analysis, the city was 30% covered by canopy. In 2018 it has come down to 26%, an average loss of 16.5 acres of canopy per year. 2030 projections could be as low as 17-21% canopy if nothing changes.

Mr. Kramer said that there is not a consistent pattern throughout the city, and there is not an equitable distribution. He said that some neighborhoods have 37% cover, while others have just 13% cover. He said there are many reasons for this. He said it has to do with urban form, it has to do with how these blocks are constructed, and he emphasized that it is not equitable in terms of the population.

Mr. Kramer also said that as of 2015, 58% of the city’s canopy is on private property. He noted that it is very challenging to engage with private property owners on this issue. He also said that 72% of the loss since 2009 has been on private property. So where loss is happening is disproportionately distributed among the land use types in the city.

Mr. Kramer also noted other interesting findings. He said that on average in the city, in places where property lines are built right up to the sidewalk (zero setback) those trees are in much worse condition than even just a setback of 0-5 feet or a 5+ foot setback.

Mr. Kramer noted that in a city like Cambridge, urban canopy tends to go through intentional cycles of boom and bust that are correlated with development booms throughout history.

Mr. Kramer said they studied a series of scenarios and made projections for 2030, 2050, and 2070. They factored in climate change, existing replanting and growth rates, loss rate, and they looked at the possibility of increased pests and diseases. They also looked at a flooding event and a drought event. They found a number of different possible scenarios. They found that the species composition in the forest will probably change. Flooding of the kind projected in Cambridge is not a huge impact overall, it is localized. But the risk of drought has a citywide, moderate impact potential.

Mr. Kramer began talking about findings vs approaches. He highlighted the values and core principles that underlie the suggested next steps. The first core principle is to understand the forest as a living system. There is no static steady state, it’s always changing. He said it is important to zoom out from any individual tree and understand that the way to look at this problem is to look at it forest-wide. He said that another core principle is to value the forest as a public resource. The forest provides shade that isn’t owned by any particular individual or property. They suggest looking at it as civic infrastructure with shared value. He says it is important to invest in the public realm: the impact of the canopy is felt most prominently in the places we share, like parks. He said that we all share a responsibility for maintaining a healthy forest. Since the city itself does not own most of the land or trees, everyone has to come together around the shared goal.

Mr. Kramer shared the breakdown of three different ways to think about the goals. He said there are equity goals, resilience goals, and shared responsibility goals. He noted that the DPW Commissioner asked them to look very hard at what is truly possible, and the consultants really believe that it would be possible to get back to that range of 30% canopy cover. He emphasized that this is not a single target because the forest should be viewed as a dynamic system.

Mr. Kramer spoke further about equity goals. He said we should set a goal of making sure every neighborhood has at least 25% canopy cover. He said that means some neighborhoods need planting, and others need retaining. He said we need to identify priority planting areas where people are at risk, especially around heat islands. He noted that it will be harder to address this in some neighborhoods because of limitations created by the urban form. He said we need to both curb the rate of loss and plant new trees. He said that without changing the rate of loss, the city would have to plant 4,000 new trees per year. If the city can curb loss by 50%, only 2,750 trees would need to be planted annually to reach the goal range.

Mr. Kramer spoke further about shared responsibility goals. He said that 10-15% increase in canopy cover in the public right of way is a good target. He said there is a lot of opportunity for planting more canopy in the residential areas.

Mr. Kramer spoke further about resilience goals. As a thought experiment, the consultants looked at what would happen if 12,000 new trees were planted along the right of way, and they all matured, and they all survived. In that scenario, which is unrealistic, canopy cover would still not get back to 30%. This problem cannot be addressed in the right of way by itself. He says that despite that, planting those 12,000 trees along the corridors changes the temperature by up to 4 degrees, and creates additional connectivity. 25% of the city would experience a change in temperature by half a degree. The consultants think that this is a very palpable change.

Mr. Kramer spoke about another resilience goal: to diversify the species in the forest. He pointed out that Cambridge’s canopy has lots of Norway maples, honey locusts, and pin oaks- they make up 1/3 of the entire forest. Due to the lack of diversity, a disease in one of these species could be devastating, and we need to diversify to avoid these risks. He says that long term, the goal should be that no more than 10% of the canopy should be of any one species, no more than 15% should be of any one genus, and no more than 30% should be from any one family. That diversity will lead to resilience from pests and disease.

Mr. Kramer said that all of those large ideas led to a matrix of 47 strategies, all of which either curb loss, grow canopy, or both. He said that the biggest strategy is redefining a significant tree to be 6 inches at diameter breast height. He said they also looked at some zoning changes, to change setback requirements and open space requirements. These changes are being integrated into the work of the climate resilience task force. He mentioned design strategies including the need to look at planting bare-root trees in expanded and enhanced tree wells where possible. He said that in some cases the city may have to reduce the roadway or create additional planting areas in parking spots, but it is always important to create complete streets and balance other priorities like bike lanes. He highlighted some best practice strategies related to pruning and soil management programs and expanding the watering program. He suggested establishing a gravel-bed nursery that widens the range of time during which trees can be planted. He mentioned strategies around education and outreach and noted that this is an important area because the public is being asked to make big philosophical changes. So communicating the reasons behind those changes is important. He said it is important to help people understand how to prevent pests and diseases, engage residents more with the urban canopy, and publish annual reports to keep people updated on progress. He said that there needs to be a comprehensive review every 5 years.

Mr. Kramer continued the presentation by discussing the city’s Tree Protection Ordinance, specifically. He said the consultants recommend that everyone should be subject to the Tree Protection Ordinance. He said that voluntary removals should incur a fee that reflects the value of the lost shared resource. He said that mitigation requirements should be proportionally higher for larger trees. He said the city’s oldest, largest trees should have special protection. He said the process should be simple and objective, especially for small projects. If something is already going through the special permit process, then the process can be more stringent. He noted that right now the fees are all equal, but all trees are not equal and fees ought to be computed based on the particulars of the tree-like species and health. He said the process needs to be equitable, and the costs cannot be borne by people who cannot afford it. He said it is important that we do not disincentivize new planting on private property, and it is important that we don’t just make it about the money: on-site replanting is critical.

Mr. Kramer finished the presentation by summarizing the proposed revisions: all property types should be under the jurisdiction, the scope should be expanded, largest trees should be completely protected, trees should be appraised more accurately using the trunk valuation formula, there should be an equitable application, and it should encourage replanting on private property. Mitigation funds should not only go to planting on public property, but the city should also find some way to use that money to plant on private land.

Councillor Zondervan thanked Mr. Kramer for presenting and opened up the floor for clarifying questions.

Vice Mayor Devereux said she found the work impressive and asked about bare root trees.

Mr. Kramer explained that some species of trees acclimate better when transferred without any soil (i.e. with “bare roots”) because there can be an incompatibility between the soil in the root ball and the soil they are planted into. In these cases, planting directly into the soil medium without a dirtball can be more effective. He said that having a bare root nursery would allow the city to widen the planting window each season and plant more trees.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked how many bare-root trees the city’s new gravel nursery at Fresh Pond might be able to accommodate.

Andrew Putnam, Superintendent of Urban Forestry and Landscape, replied that the city has just begun clearing the space and they anticipate it will be able to hold 400 trees. He mentioned that a shipment of 180 trees has already come in.

Councillor Zondervan remarked that he was impressed by the presentation as well. He also said that he appreciates the complexity of the issue. He mentioned that in 2016 and 2017 he and other members of Green Cambridge had identified significant small tree deaths due to severe drought. He asked if the consultants had noticed any correlation between that drought period and tree deaths in their research.

Mr. Kramer said that based on the way they looked at the data, year to year conditions were hard to compare. He said he cannot say that they saw a specific signature of that drought period, but they recognize that water is the critical factor for new trees. They’ve also talked about building stronger soil resiliency through liquid biological amendments.

Stephanie Hsia, Landscape Architect at Reed-Hilderbrand said that while they didn’t look specifically at the impact of drought on young trees, they did see that the current species composition is quite vulnerable to drought. That’s why one of the recommendations is to plant more drought-tolerant species, particularly in areas close to impervious surfaces.

Councillor Zondervan asked if the city could provide any data on the impact of the current Tree Protection Ordinance.

Mr. Putnam said that since the “moratorium” was enacted, 349 permits have been applied for. Of those, 298 permits were granted. The majority of those were under the category of dead or dangerous, with around a dozen negatively impacting a structure and just a few canopy health scenarios.

Councillor Zondervan asked if the ordinance was being effective in slowing down the cutting of trees. Mr. Putnam said he could not say for sure whether the ordinance has been effective.

Councillor Zondervan asked how many specific situations there were where people chose to just pay the fine in order to move ahead with cutting down the tree.

Mr. Putnam mentioned that there were two situations where people proactively applied for a permit to get rejected so that they could pay the mitigation fee. He said they have responded to two non-permitted removals in which the mitigation fee was sent to them.

Councillor Zondervan mentioned that he thinks the idea of annual reports on the canopy would be useful, including data on permits and the number of mitigation fees that were paid.

Councillor Zondervan opened public comment at 5:51pm and noted that each person would have three minutes to speak.

Peter Cohen of 11 Donnell Street spoke. He said that he loves trees and he tries to be thoughtful about what he does with them. He has planted and taken down many trees over the last 25 years. He said he felt there was a tone-deafness on the part of the consultants, and he is unhappy with the existing ordinance because suddenly there is an expensive and burdensome protocol for removing dead trees. He said he left detailed messages with the arborist that were never returned. He said it is important to use education and incentives to get people to keep or replace trees, or plant new trees. He doesn’t understand why he should have to pay $300 to have a tree certified as dead, rather than spending that same money on a new tree. He urged the council to try to build consensus and invited everybody to come see his property to better understand his situation. He said don’t use a stick, use encouragement.

Mike Nakagawa of 51 Madison Ave spoke. He said that we need to make substantial improvements to the Tree Protection Ordinance before buildings take up space that trees could in the future. He noted that if we only focus on cool corridors, the rich people will just buy up those plots so it is important to focus on the whole city. He said he is not a fan of compressing density because it will be harder to shade tall buildings with trees. He said we need to rethink how our streets are laid out. He said we need to change the view of trees as being merely “nice to have” into being “necessary”. Overall he likes the recommendations but he has no faith that the city will translate them into effective law because developers always get their way.

Steven Nutter, Executive Director of Green Cambridge, spoke. He said he felt that this is an amazing day and he is very excited. He said the report and presentation were very well thought through. He said this report will be used as an example for other cities around the country. He said he is heartened to see the cyclical graph used, and that there is canopy loss all across New England but it can all bounce back. He felt we can really do this. He pointed out that combined with the net-zero action plan and the zoning resiliency task force, these are three ways to go forward in terms of climate change and sustainability as a city. He said that our collective relationship with the land and our use of energy will determine how we survive. He said that we are a farm, a forest, and a wetland, and we just happen to have buildings on top. He thanked everyone and said that a forest is not something that is outside the city- it is right there on the street. He mentioned that a change in city form may be required.

Jeremy Kepner of 95 Richdale Ave spoke. He said that he represents one of the special cases because he got caught up in the ordinance. He said he has a tree that is an invasive species (Chinese Tree of Heaven) and 39 inches in diameter. He said he highly recommends you plant this tree because it grows very rapidly, ten feet in ten years and it is apparently still a baby. He said he got a quote of $50,000 to remove it. He said it is currently destroying their driveway. He said he had to go through much effort to assess the tree, and now he is being told he will need structural engineers. He said he would love resources to find a way to keep the tree. He said the city should provide more resources. He wondered if we should have some sort of exemption for invasive species. He said we either need to embrace the tree and the city needs to help him come up with a way to keep it without damaging his property, or he needs an exception.

Councillor Zondervan closed public comment at 6:06pm.

Councillor Zondervan re-opened the floor for discussion.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if there was any way we could start using public funds for planting on private property.

DPW Commissioner O’Riordan said that many communities have set up tree trusts. This would provide resources for people who want to plant, but it would get around the anti-aid amendment. He said there is potential to work with the non-profit community to make it happen, and discussions are ongoing. He said that there is no cost to remove a dead tree, other than the cost of the arborist. The city arborist cannot go onto private property.

Mr. Kramer said that the goal is to always encourage replanting first. He said it would not be good to make more hurdles to doing the right thing.

Councillor Zondervan asked more about establishing a tree trust and wondered why we haven’t done it already. Commissioner O’Riordan said that the trust would be financed by voluntary private funding, and there are still ongoing discussions about how to establish it. He said that the discussion is not far enough along yet to go into it further, but that he would like to come back to the council at a later date to discuss it more.

Councillor Zondervan welcomed City Manager Louis DePasquale to the hearing.

Councillor Zondervan said he did hear a legitimate concern about a resident having to hire an arborist just to certify that a tree is dead, and he wondered about the feasibility of reimbursing or finding some other way to provide that service without incurring a cost for the resident.

Commissioner O’Riordan replied that reimbursing people for private arborists could be upwards of $100,000 annually.

Councillor Zondervan said that we could look at it as an investment if we truly view this as a shared resource.

Councillor Zondervan said he sees a real educational opportunity in our school system around this issue, and considering we need to invest in having more knowledgeable people, why not train more students to do this kind of work?

Councillor Zondervan asked about the timeline of the proposed amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance. He asked if amendments would be proposed this term, or not until next term.

Commissioner O’Riordan reiterated that two meetings are coming up over the next few months- one more meeting of the task force, and a public meeting. He said he expects to have this conversation with the full council in January 2020.

Councillor Zondervan pointed out that the current “moratorium” expires in early March, and suggested that it may be better to have some specific amendments put in place sooner so that we aren’t running up against that deadline as we have the larger conversation.

Commissioner O’Riordan said that they would look into that possibility, but that it will be important to include the task force, which will meet on December 5.

Vice Mayor Devereux suggested the possibility of implementing an urban forestry curriculum at Rindge School of Technical Arts (RSTA). She also emphasized the need to find a way to better educate homeowners on understanding the signs of when a tree is starting to fail.

Councillor Zondervan asked more about the possibility of doing an annual review or five-year comprehensive review, mentioning that it could be similar to the way in which the net-zero action plan is reviewed.

Commissioner O’Riordan said that the city is committed to doing data collection via LiDAR every 2-3 years, and that will form the backbone of the reporting. He mentioned that beyond that, arbor week may be appropriate timing for an annual review.

Councillor Zondervan said that with the net-zero action plan there is an annual report reviewed by the Climate Protection Action Committee, and then the council, in addition to a 5-year review process. He said it makes sense to him to do something similar here. He said there might need to be a policy statement that states this.

Councillor Zondervan reopened public comment at 6:24pm.

Peter Cohen of 11 Donnell Street spoke. He said that sometimes there are other priorities competing with trees, for instance, solar panels. He said he could install solar panels at his house if it weren’t for the trees. He said that trees are always growing and never static. He said that another competing value is privacy. He said that he wants to take out some Norway maples and put in some shorter, wider trees for privacy’s sake. He encouraged the council to use educational persuasion and technical skills rather than punitive measures. He said that more development next door killed healthy trees rather quickly.

Steven Nutter, Executive Director of Green Cambridge, spoke. He said that since the Spring, Green Cambridge has been working with various groups at the high school, at Lesley, and at MIT on tree planting. He said there is a really big appetite for this sort of opportunity at the high school. He said that there are 2,000 trees and 2,000 high school students so that could be one way to get to our goal. He said there is space on the high school campus for a gravel bed bare-root program. He said that in June, Green Cambridge kicked off a heritage tree program. He said it is important to coordinate between the technical need to plant trees and the people involved in that process.

Mike Nakagawa of 51 Madison Ave spoke. He said he had to push back on the bad reputation of Norway maple trees. He said that there is a benefit to having them too.

Jeremy Kepner of 95 Richdale Ave spoke. He reiterated that there needs to be some sort of accommodation for fast-growing invasive species. He said that a liability that was $50,000 would increase to $200,000 under the proposed system. He asked how he would work with that. He said the city needs to do this in a more positive way.

Councillor Zondervan closed public comment.

Vice Mayor Devereux said she wanted to end on a positive note. She thanked the staff, DPW, the consultants, and the task force members. She said that this work deserves a bigger audience. She said that the council hears about this issue all the time. She said that this is extraordinary work. She said she attended some of the task force meetings but never could have imagined how this data would be used to tell this story like it was. She said this is a tremendous resource, and she thanked everybody one more time.

Councillor Zondervan extended his thanks and appreciation to Vice Mayor Devereux. He said that back in 2016 when everybody was very worried about tree canopy decline, she stepped in and made this task force happen. He thanked everybody for an amazing report.

Councillor Zondervan adjourned the meeting at 6:34pm.

1. A Report was received from the Department of Public Works entitled Cambridge Urban Forest Master Plan, Nov 12, 2019.
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE

The documents received by the committee may be viewed here:
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2559

For the Committee,
Vice Mayor Jan Devereux, Chair
Councillor Quinton Zondervan, Chair

Committee Report #2
The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Carlone, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Vice Mayor Devereux; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environmental and Transportation Planning; Bronwyn Cooke, Sustainability Planner; Seth Federspiel, Energy Planner, Net Zero Action Plan (NZAP), Community Development Department (CDD); Dan Totten; and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were Sharon deVos and Ginger Ryan.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and read the Call of the Meeting. He said that earlier in the day there was a hearing discussing the tracking of the City’s emissions and identifying key indicators that would give a sense of where the City is going. He stated that this hearing is to discuss emissions goals. He said that the overall goal currently is to get to zero emissions by 2050. He stated that these are separate conversations on purpose. He said that he would like to cover four main questions: Should the City’s goal be net zero by 2050 or even sooner; Does the City need interim goals to measure its progress and if so, every year or every five years; If the City does have interim goals, what will happen if they are not achieved.

He stated that previous emission goals were set for 2010 and that goal was not achieved. He said that the City cannot afford to miss the 2050 target. He noted that we have to reduce emissions sharply over the next 10-15 years and then spend the rest of the time getting rid of the more difficult ones to eliminate. He noted that a more gradual approach will lead to miserable failure. He stated the need to set short-term goals and commit to achieving them. He said that it is critical to have the conversation because it allows us to uncover opportunities and areas of concern.

Susanne Rasmussen introduced Bronwyn Cooke and Seth Federspiel. Ms. Cooke gave an overview of the PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT A) titled City of Cambridge GHG Emissions and Related Goals. CDD also provided the Committee with the presentation from the earlier Health and Environment Committee presentation titled City of Cambridge GHG Management (ATTACHMENT B). She gave a summary of what the inventory reveals and the City’s planning around how to reduce those emissions. She said that from the emissions inventory, the City can now clearly see that buildings account for about 80% of the City’s emissions. She noted that transportation emissions are about 11% of the inventory. She said that this is measuring vehicles that are registered in Cambridge and accounting for all the miles that they drive, whether in Cambridge or not. She said that this is the foundation that has been used to develop climate action plans and goals.

Ms. Rasmussen added that on the waterfall charts, it looks like the bars are the same height, but buildings are 80% of emissions, transportation 11% of emissions the rest are waste. She said that this data comes from the update that was made to the Climate Action Plan.

Councillor Siddiqui said that the City is not telling owners to use a particular strategy for reducing emissions. She asked if a strategy is dependent on each situation. Ms. Cooke responded that one example is that a good strategy for reducing emissions is in transportation. She said that we can reduce transportation emissions if we switch every vehicle to electric, but that does not address other objectives such as congestion and safety. She said when the City quantified transportation emissions based on those goals, they were looking at mode shift goals. These goals are set to reduce the vehicle miles travelled (VMT). She said that by reducing VMT, we are also reducing emissions. Susanne Rasmussen added virtually all of the actions that are being contemplated are inside the Net Zero Action Plan (NZAP). She said that the City has been working on proposal for all buildings that are subject to the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance (BEUDO) for continuous improvement so if they don’t, on their own, reduce energy consumption, they would be required to take steps to continuously reduce their energy and therefore, emissions. She explained that initially, they were going to focus on energy strategies, but the current proposal is only to focus on greenhouse gas emissions. She said that this gives property owners more flexibility. She said that with the flexibility to either do energy efficiency or buy renewable energy, or both, that will make it easier to make continuous improvements.

Councillor Carlone asked about acronyms in the Passenger Fleet Composition included in Attachment B. Ms. Cooke responded that BEV is a battery electric vehicle and ICE is an internal combustion engine. Councillor Carlone said that it would be worthwhile to have a list of the most workable approaches for each of the strategies. He asked if CDD has found that people are going to the report and coming back and saying how they will approach the issue. Susanne said that the NZAP is at the strategy level and many strategies are not building-specific. She said that once you delve into individual actions, that is when the specificity comes about.

Seth Federspiel noted that it is important to clarify the idea that the overall target is the greenhouse gas emission reduction and it is up to building owners how they want to get there is specific to the proposed BEUDO policy which is one of many actions in the NZAP. He said that the NZAP has actions for existing buildings, new buildings and renewable energy supply. He said that for existing buildings, the BEUDO amendments would be the largest impact because of the disproportionate share of Cambridge’s greenhouse gas emissions that come from those buildings. He said that there are also programs for smaller residential buildings. He said that for new buildings, in addition to the Net Zero Emissions Construction Standards that will be phased in, there are also current green building standards with specific requirements for municipal buildings. He said that on the renewable energy supply side, there are umbrella low-carbon energy supply strategies. He explained that they are conducting a resilient and renewable thermal analysis to think about how to convert buildings off of fossil fuels and onto renewable sources. He added that they are also looking at proposing a solar installation requirement for new buildings and major construction. He said that the 5-year review of the NZAP will help with the conversation because it will break out the NZAP actions into more specific emission reduction projections.

Ms. Farooq said that when the City Council ultimately adopts the final policy changes, it does make sense to have a suite of actions that are available, so everyone does not have to reinvent the same wheel. She said that the existing Parking Transportation Demand Management (PTDM) functions have a series of options so that people can select the things that are the most appropriate. She said that it will depend on each individual building. She said that changes would apply to existing buildings so the rhythm of when capital changes are to be made will depend on certain cycles. She noted that there will be a lot of individual combinations for the right strategy for the right building.

Councillor Carlone asked about enforcement. Ms. Rasmussen said that this proposal is in development and the remedy is still to be finalized. She said that they have not gotten to that piece yet. Councillor Carlone said that most clients will wait to meet standards in place. He said that without specific recommendations, they will say that they are looking at alternatives which will take a long period of time. He added that it would be beneficial to think about when a building is sold that a certain standard must be me.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that she is struggling with the graph named CAP GHG Emissions Reductions. She asked if Business As Usual Line along the top includes what has already been recommended. Ms. Cooke responded that Business as Usual is all emissions from all sectors. She said that it is only looking at general market driven things. She said that the top lines do include CAFE standards. She said that this is a federal policy with the assumption that vehicle turnover is as such and every time there is turnover, the new car will be slightly more efficient. She said that this does not include any of the policies that are being discussed. She said that the green wedge does include policies that have been discussed and assumes some level of adoption of those policies and programs. Ms. Rasmussen said that they have not laid out a plan to get the City to 2050 as of yet. She said that the City always knew that more things need to happen. She explained that the workflow charts show that everything underway will only get the City to a certain point. Ms. Cooke added that the NZAP 5-year review is when they will really dig into this information to inform a more robust model. Councillor Zondervan said that we should not get too focused about the part that we do not know how to solve yet. He said that the important thing is are we moving in the right direction and are we putting things into place that will show reductions.

As it relates to the graph titled Building Sector Strategies, Councillor Zondervan asked how Strategy #2 will lead to emission reductions since those are additional buildings or are they replacing other buildings. Bronwyn answered that in the Business As Usual assumption, it assumes that without that policy, those buildings will be built anyway, and they won’t be net zero. This a reduction over that forecast scenario.

As it relates to the slide titled Sub-sector Data and Goal, Councillor Zondervan said that 6% of the City’s buildings account for 94% of emissions. He asked if this is correct. Ms. Cooke said 6% of buildings covered by the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance account for 71% of building emissions. Mr. Federspiel added that each column is a category of information. He explained that the first column is the number of buildings in Cambridge. The BEUDO buildings are 846 out of 13,608. The BEUDO buildings are 6% and the rest of the buildings in Cambridge are 94% of all the buildings in Cambridge. Councillor Zondervan asked if the BEUDO buildings represent 6% of the buildings in Cambridge. Mr. Federspiel responded in the affirmative. He said that the next one is saying the BEUDO buildings account for 55% of the total square footage and therefore the remaining buildings account for 45% of the total square footage. He said that the third column is the proportion of the energy use and the fourth column is the proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. Councillor Zondervan said that 71% of building emissions are caused by the buildings that are under the BEUDO Ordinance. He said that the remaining 29% are smaller buildings, triple deckers, and single-family homes. He said that this is important to note because most of the City’s residents who live in smaller buildings will have a tiny impact on emissions and this is why the City is focused on BEUDO buildings.

Councillor Zondervan asked how to deal with the landlord/tenant split because the requirement is on the building owner. He asked if the City requires them to reduce emissions from the building, are we requiring indirectly the tenants to buy renewable energy. Mr. Federspiel said that we must keep in mind that it is a large commercial landlord. He said that in the lease requirement there would be an agreement on how to achieve the targets. Councillor Zondervan asked if there are any legal concerns about making that requirement. Ms. Farooq responded that the entity responsible would not be the tenant but the property owner. She said that any decision-making would have to be done in conjunction with the two parties. In terms of the impact from the existing buildings that don’t fall under the BEUDO Ordinance, they are thinking about interventions throughout the building sector recognizing that impact comes from larger commercial buildings.

Councillor Zondervan said that because getting the last 30% that is not under BEUDO, will be really hard. He said that he thinks that the City would want to get the big buildings to zero faster. He said that a target of 50% per decade as the target for BEUDO buildings would still leave ten years to focus on the remainder rather than optimistically assuming that we can “land the plane” in 2050. He said that in some ways, the first reductions will be the hardest. He said that 15-20 years from now, it would be silly not to run a building on anything but 100% renewable energy. He noted that this must be factored into the equation. He suggested the possibility of asking for 10% in the next 2 five-year periods and the rest will go much faster. Mr. Federspiel said that the numerical targets are based on what the science says that we need to achieve to avoid the greatest impacts of climate change. He said that we need to achieve a 45% emission reduction compared to 2010 by 2030. He said that it is that benchmark, along with what we have seen peer cities adopting. He said that this is driving the magnitude of these targets. He said that there is more low-hanging fruit because many buildings may not be operating as efficiently as they could be. He said that they also get feedback from building owners saying that it will be difficult to get the last 20% or 40% because there will not be as much efficiency to squeeze out of a building. He said that they thought about whether the standards should be absolute standards and the feedback that they received from stakeholders is that they would like all buildings to start where they are with common objectives. Councillor Zondervan said that it is tricky because the efficiency is one thing, but the emissions is a different issue that has to go to zero on the grid. He said that balancing those equations may be helpful. He said that he thinks that Cambridge must push the envelope and lead the way. If we are only following global standards, we are not pushing as hard as we can. He asked when the City Council should expect to be deliberating this proposal. Ms. Rasmussen said that it will come before the City Council within the current calendar year with legal review as we speak. She added that the easiest thing is to remove emissions from electricity consumption while the hardest thing is electrifying an existing building. Councillor Zondervan said that one idea is to require payments into some type of carbon fund.

Councillor Carlone asked when the 5-year review will officially begin. Mr. Federspiel responded that they are starting it in the 5th year (2020). He noted that the hope is to have a consultant on board within the next month or two. Councillor Carlone asked if this is a six-month review, or will it take a year. Mr. Federspiel said that the goal is to have the review process done by the end of the year. Ms. Rasmussen said that the process will include a substantial stakeholder committee. She explained that in the spring they will pull together a committee to deliberate impact analysis and talk about additional strategies and/or actions should be added, if any.

Ginger Ryan, 35 Crescent Street, said that we keep on getting updates from the IPCC that the danger is greater, and we are on a more accelerated timeline to get this done. She stated that she hopes that when the Net Zero Plan is updated, it will reflect the fact that we need to get to 50% reduction by 2030. She said that she understands the problem about how to get accurate information about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and it is difficult work. She said that we must be honest and clear-minded and not deceived by what will and will not work. She asked about City buildings and how it is doing with their buildings. She said that getting to net zero is possible and she likes the idea of a carbon fund.

Councillor Zondervan emphasized the climate justice aspect. He stated that we cannot put the cost on the backs of individual tenants and homeowners. We must get equity when addressing the big buildings.

Councillor Siddiqui said that she read an article in City Speaks through the National League of Cities on work being done in San Antonio where they created a pilot and helped 10 families by replacing failing roofs with energy efficient roofs. She noted that there are creative models out there.

Councillor Zondervan stated that his four questions are:
Should the goal be to get to net zero sooner than 2050?
Are interim goals needed for the community as a whole?
If so, what should be the frequency?
What happens if we don’t achieve interim goals?

Councillor Zondervan asked if there should be a community wide emission goals to get to zero sooner than 2050. He said that the rest of the world is not doing their part and if Cambridge follows along, then what are we doing? He said that Cambridge should lead the charge and along the way, pioneer strategies that will benefit all and drive Cambridge towards a real solution. Vice Mayor Devereux said that we need a completely different business as usual model. Councillor Zondervan referred to the CAP GHG Emissions Reductions slide and noted that the wedge of green that needs to be eliminated is not that impossible. He said that if we continue to improve our methods and technologies, we could eliminate that. He said that if we just set the goal to get to 2050 in a linear way, it is less likely. He said that if we set goals more aggressively right now, we can chip away at that wedge earlier. Ms. Rasmussen said that Cambridge is leading in the country with the goal of 2050 with a few other cities. She said that Cambridge is among two handfuls of cities that have a plan to bring us to that goal. She said that the role that Cambridge is playing in terms of leadership is to show how this can be done. This is more impactful than having a one-year term goal. She said that the City does have intermediate goals for emissions reduction and waste and commuting. She said that the City’s ability to develop real strategies that are implemented on a large proportion of sectors is where the leadership is important and impactful. Councillor Zondervan said that part of the challenge is that 70% of the emissions are from BUEDO buildings and there is a clear way to address that.

He asked about the other 30%. He said that he agrees that Cambridge has a great set up for addressing emissions from big buildings, but in terms of the community as a whole, it still does not give us a full handle on how the entire community will reduce to zero by 2050. Ms. Rasmussen said that the interim goal is 2030. She said that the NZAP has a number of actions that hit all buildings and types.

Councillor Zondervan said that there has been focus on building and transportation but there is another piece around the natural environment, food production and the ability for plants to draw down carbon and what role they can play into the strategies. Ms. Rasmussen said that the DPW is about to complete the Urban Forest Master Plan. She said that given how the city is laid out in terms of pervious and impervious surfaces, the impact on emissions that trees could offset is not highly significant. She said that although an important action, looking at the greenhouse gas inventory will not be a large contributor. Councillor Zondervan said that in terms of strategies, this could be part of the City’s thinking. He said that the City owns lands in other cities to supply water. He said that the City could pay other entities to plant trees or to otherwise draw carbon out of the air. He said that the work that is done on stormwater management is important for seagrass in the Boston Harbor which draws down a lot of carbon. There are things that we can be doing to contribute to that aspect of emissions. He said that this needs to be part of the conversation.

Councillor Carlone said that as it relates to moving the goals to be implemented faster, he suspects that the findings are going to be very sobering. He noted that it is important to have the conversation when the City has more details. He said the City has to step up and have our buildings reflect how others can do it.

When talking about community-wide emissions, Councillor Zondervan said that it is important to think about the overall, community wide goal. Ms. Cooke said that in terms of the full picture, there is a lot of interesting work to be done. She said that we are talking currently about emissions that are able to be measured. As it relates to food production, she said that there is interest and they are looking into additional places that may have an impact on emissions. They are starting to think about offsets. Councillor Zondervan added that when he thinks about planting trees or restoring nature, he does not think of it as offset, it is rebuilding carbon sinks.

Councillor Zondervan made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to include a discussion of what Cambridge’s community wide average annual emissions goals should be as part of the 5-year Net Zero Action Plan review that will be conducted in 2020.

The motion passed.

Councillor Zondervan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 3:30pm.

For the Committee,
Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan, Co-Chair
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair

Order     Dec 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to include a discussion of what Cambridge’s community wide average annual emissions goals should be as part of the 5-year Net Zero Action Plan review that will be conducted in 2020.

Committee Report #3
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Nov 26, 2019 beginning at 2:05pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

Present: Carlone, Devereux, Kelley, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Zondervan
Absent: Simmons, Toomey

The Ordinance Committee will meet to continue discussion on a petition to amend Article 19 of the Zoning Ordinance titled “Special Permit Criteria”.

Councillor Carlone opened the meeting at 2:05pm.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 2:54
The call of the hearing is as follows: "The Ordinance committee will meet to continue discussion on a petition to amend article 19 of the zoning ordinance titled, special permit criteria. We have, in document, form a response from Community Development including the zoning, proposed modifications. We have a letter that we're getting copies of from Eversource.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 5:47
Councillor Zondervan as the prime petitioner especially on the energy portion, please go over the petition. You may relate to any other information, such as the letter, but the petition is what is before us. Welcome.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 12:15
I will review the petition. Which in terms of the energy component, asks for two additional narratives, one on electric service infrastructure and one a gas service infrastructure. And the language mimics, really is copy pasted from the water and stormwater sections in the existing zoning. Then there's the urban design findings proposed by yourself. And then there's the 19.025.3 utility impact findings section, which I believe is the one that's most Councillor Carlone. We also have some amendments proposed from CDD to all three sections that I mentioned, but particularly the last section.

Would we be able to ask them questions about this letter because it's primarily referencing the original petition that has been or is proposed to be amended by CDD? And the amendments directly impact some of the comments in the letter. So, I would like to hear from Eversource, after we hear from CDD, how they feel about the petition if it were amended.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 14:15
That would be fine.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 14:27
Mr. Roberts and team and Miss Watkins.

Jeffrey Roberts 14:46
Hello, Mr. Chair. Pleasure to be here. Jeff Roberts, Director of Zoning and Development. Iram Farooq is to my far right. Kathy Watkins, the City Engineer, to my right and to my left Nancy Glowa, the City Solicitor.

So just to very briefly go over what we submitted to the committee. This is a draft of the of the petition. And at the last Ordinance Committee hearing, which was on Sept 26, 2019, there was some discussion around certain aspects of the petition. There were some amendments that were put on the table by the Ordinance Committee, which staff then took and working together CDD, DPW and the law department.

We tried to encapsulate the changes that were recommended by the Ordinance Committee, along with some additional language refinements to try to improve the language of the petition. Particularly in regard to the utility impact findings in the last paragraph of that page. I think that we would still caution, as was noted in the planning board recommendation, and I would defer to Kathy to talk about it more, that there remain concerns about the having the Planning Board be required to make a finding regarding a particular projects, impacts on the overall utility service, given the nature of utility service planning, not necessarily being able to be tied to one particular project. And that's the quick summary of it, and if Kathy wants to add that she certainly does so.

Kathy Watkins 16:46
We think the revised language is better than the original, but we still have significant concerns. And I think, you know, we're all just sort of seeing the Eversource letter and they can talk to that. In terms of how large-scale utility infrastructure is managed at the state level and through Eversource. That that's sort of not very consistent with the Planning Board individual building process. And so we again, go back to a lot of what we talked about the at the last hearing, which is that the first two sections really get at a lot of what people have said would be beneficial information, and allow those conversations to happen earlier, and identify the anticipated utility needs of the development. Without overly trying to tie individual projects to individual, you know, larger scale infrastructure, upgrades for Eversource. And so, you know, our original letter to the Planning Board had concerns about those first two sections. And I think through these discussions, we've seen that there's real value there. And as Councillor Zondervan mentioned those really mimic very closely, pretty much exactly the existing language that we use around city infrastructure. And I found that to be a quite helpful process and so we can continue to have concerns about the last utility impact finding section.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 18:14
Any additional comments from the city? Okay. Councillor Zondervan.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 18:22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so if you could help me understand a little bit more specifically, how the state regulations conflict or clash with this requirement, because this requirement says that this project would not cause undue adverse impacts and so, if a particular project doesn't cause any undue adverse impacts, then it wouldn't be an issue. This is really only if there is a specific project on the table that would clearly put us over some limit that we hadn't previously identified. And presumably, that would happen only with very large projects that are that are being proposed. So, I'm not fully getting the picture as to how that conflicts with whatever needs to be done at the state level.

Kathy Watkins 19:33
Through you Mr. Chair. I mean, this might be a good time to ask Eversource to come up to talk through their permitting process and how they look at planning. I don't want to speak for them. I think, you know, from our perspective, one of the things is the timing. So, something may be permitted, but it's not built for a number of years. And so, you know, what is determined to be that project that pushed over where we needed a new substation. So, it's really a collective infrastructure improvement as opposed to happens to be the project that's at the Planning Board at that moment. And so, I think that's where we have where we have from a staff perspective, the concern, but in terms of, you know, Eversource's projects, you know, Eversource's planning and permitting, I would defer to them.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 20:14
Miss Watkins, it could be a series of projects that are coming to the Planning Board. Not just one project. Yes, one project is the first one, but there could be two right behind it. And that raises the concern for everybody in this room. How are we going to handle the energy? How are we going to handle a building that's out of scale to the site that's being proposed on Fulkerson? So, I don't understand it either. So why don't, at Miss Watkins suggestion, if that's alright with the council, we will bring Eversource forward. By the way, you can get embossed chairs say Eversource on it in this room, we can arrange that. But I'm sure you don't want that. But please come forward. I'm sure you're growing more comfortable as you come visit us. But please reintroduce yourselves and for the city clerk as well

Robert Andrew 21:32
My name is Bob Andrew. I'm Director of System Solutions at Eversource energy.

Michael Vedovelli 21:40
Good afternoon. I'm Mike Vedovelli. I'm manager of Community Relations.

Juan Martinez 21:45
Good afternoon, Juan Martinez. I'm a Distribution Planning manager.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 21:53
I believe Miss Watkins thought you might give an overview.

Robert Andrew 21:59
Our planning process is primarily regulated by the state. In the distribution area. So, for distribution substations, distribution costs and rate recovery. We follow the guidelines that the Department of Public Utilities and we have established over the years. So, when we're making investments in the distribution system, we don't look at city and town lines. The only time city and town lines play a major factor is when say, locally, the town of Belmont is a municipal utility. So, we do not have distribution infrastructure in Belmont.

On the other side, when you get up towards Medford, Medford is served by National Grid. So, we don't have our distribution infrastructure, you know, in that town. So, when we're encountered with either geographical barriers, the Charles River being a great one, or franchise barriers that kind of creates a wall, if you will, that we generally don't cross. But other than that, we don't look at any kind of city town area barriers, we look at the cost and reliability to implement system changes. And the criteria that the DPU, the main ones, that they look at us is reliability, cost and environmental impact. You know, when we propose major projects for our facilities going forward. Now, that said part of the state process is they respect home rule and things of that nature and they require us to have dealt with the appropriate cities and towns for whatever the scope of the project is. And they actually like it when we can come into their proceedings with letters of support from the affected communities. We like it to, you know, when we can do that the process is just that much smoother through there.

One of the cautionary things that is in our letter is that in this case, our recent discussion has been driven by major  projects coming in, essentially being becoming the straw that breaks the camel's back, and requires us to move to new infrastructure, but that's not always the case. It can be native load growth, you know, in an area. Some of the issues today that we're starting to take a look at is in a lot of the zero carbon initiatives. They are looking at taking loads today that are currently fossil fuel driven and converting them to electric. So, that would be a case where if a household decides to retire their oil heating furnace and use an electric heat pump, that will create electric load, you know, for us. So, projects can drive it, it can just be native load growth, you know, not that long ago, it was air conditioning. That was that was driving, you know, a lot of need for projects across the system. So, projects are part of it, and can be a major part of it. There are also other things that can happen on the existing infrastructure that can drive the need for change.

Did I answer your...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 26:00
Well, I understand that and that makes sense. But as you know, this came about because of an oversized project in an area that just doesn't warrant that happening.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 26:20
Through you, I appreciate that answer. And it certainly makes lots of sense to me that there are other circumstances that would motivate you to upgrade your infrastructure or add to it. I would say, however, that those circumstances are not material to this petition, because this petition is specifically about approving large projects in Cambridge. And so what I'm trying to understand is, if a large project or a series of large projects that are being anticipated by the Planning Board comes before them, and they do determine based on these narratives and other information available to them, then if they were to permit all those projects, it would generate a large impact in terms of your utility infrastructure. I don't understand why we would say that they don't have the authority to make that determination and to then deny the project. They are not denying anything you have to do. Their job is to decide whether or not to permit that building in Cambridge. So, I'm just trying to understand whether that distinction is valid or whether you're saying that, that it's not.

Robert Andrew 27:45
Well, I guess the, if you take a look at the list of projects that are there today, it's extensive. And so, if we went back to that list, and said, okay, where would you draw the line? So that we didn't need an additional substation. In East Cambridge, it's a very difficult thing to do, because the projects developed over time. Many will be built, and others won't. They will come at different points in time. So, I don't know how you apply this. If I'm a developer, and I've come in do I now have a reservation for the megawatt of capacity that I think my projects going to take, it's going to be an extremely difficult thing to manage.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 28:44
Thank you. And again, that makes sense to me. And, you know, that leads me to think that maybe we need to impose a very hard objective cap and say, This is the amount of capacity that we have and If a building is going to cause us to go over that capacity, then they have to do something to reduce it. I believe we do something similar with our sewer infrastructure. If I'm not mistaken that we require new projects to reduce the amount of storm water and sewer commingling that that goes on.

Kathy Watkins 29:22
Through you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, with the water and sewer and city infrastructure, and I think we talked about this in original memo. One is that it's a system that we fully control and understand and manage. We do not set a cap, what we say to developers is that as we're adding additional flow to the sewer system, they have to make improvements to mitigate that new flow. So, it's not..., Or if there's a capacity issue at a certain point, they may have to do additional improvements. And so, there are improvements that have to occur, but it is not a cap that says okay because of this existing infrastructure, there is no development allowed or permitted beyond that. So, there are, you know, mitigations and improvements that have to be done, but it's certainly not a cap.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 30:11
Thank you. And, and again, what I'm suggesting is that maybe we need something similar. Not to say the project can't be done, but to say that in order for it to be done, there has to be reduction in electrical consumption overall, somewhere in this in the current load zone or load pocket. And other improvements have to be made, because, you know, this is not just about the substation that's obviously what's on the lot of people's minds and what triggered this particular amendment, but it's not meant to address that specifically. It's meant to anticipate the future and we have other challenges in our in our electrical infrastructure. In particular, we also have challenges in our gas infrastructure with leaks and so forth. But with the electrical infrastructure, I'm told that we can't even have solar panels in sections of central square because of the grid infrastructure not being adjusted to that.

So, again, it seems to me that there does need to be some mechanism that triggers those kinds of improvement, just like we trigger stormwater improvements with new developments. So, it's not about, you know, stopping the project. It's about making sure that the impacts of that project are being mitigated, whether that means reducing the electrical consumption, or upgrading the infrastructure in some other way so that it gives us other benefits, like more distributed renewable energy on this on the grid, locally. But I do feel very strongly that we need to do something, we can't just permit more and more buildings without taking account of the fact that those are adding to our energy consumption, and therefore adding to our fossil fuel driven emissions, and therefore adding to the climate crisis. We have to stop doing that, somehow. So, I'm open to other ways of doing that. But, you know, just saying, well, we can't have the planning board involved in these decisions is not acceptable to me.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 32:30
Councillor Mallon, followed by the Vice Mayor.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 32:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. I'm just remembering our last conversation about this. And it seems to me that the Planning Board didn't feel, it's not that they... Eversource is saying that the Planning Board is not the authority. The Planning Board themselves said that they were concerned that its members don't have the expertise necessary to evaluate the information required by the petition and was therefore hesitant to require it. And Miss Watkins, I think you mentioned in our last meeting about this that there was going to be a quarterly meeting between DPW, Eversource and other utilities. I understand Councillor Zondervan’s reluctance to accept this as a finding. I'm just wondering, if the Planning Board doesn't feel like they have the expertise could that report be the expertise that they need? Right, like if the Planning Board was able to refer to this quarterly meeting and the load, the electricity load? Is there a way to, to make sure that the meetings that you're having that's talking about future load and projects, gets back to the Planning Board so that they feel more comfortable being able to have that expertise on the board or if there's whereby some other mechanism where we're using those quarterly meetings to actually do planning in a way that doesn't put us in a situation that we are in right now.

Kathy Watkins 34:02
Through you Mr. Chair. I would think that the, you know, we've talked about having, you know, an annual meeting, that's a public meeting with the Planning Board, and there is a Council order outstanding that we are in the process of responding to that as well. I think that would facilitate having these conversations sooner. So that, such that, the issue would, like with the Fulkerson street and the need for additional capacity is understood sooner and discussed sooner and those trade-offs. You know, and so as Eversource is looking at additional projects, that that is being discussed sooner in the process. It still does not address the issue that I think Bob tried to talk about in terms of individual projects and tying that to... Okay, there's a Fulkerson substation, we don't want that. And so, tying that to specific projects is very challenging. So, you know, if we're a city that you know, wants to continue to see the development and wants to continue to see particularly you know, those buildings and then also converting over from gas to electric that that's part of that process. And so, I don't have you know... so I would think it's more in terms of broader understanding and improving long term planning. And having those discussions sooner but not necessarily, again, facilitating the Planning Board be able to tie that back to a specific project.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 35:21
Thank you, through you to miss Watkins. I think you said if we're a city that wants to continue development, I think that we are a city that wants to continue development that doesn't continue to increase the electric load to a place where it's impacting residents like it is right now. So, I think somehow, we have to make sure that all of these things are being looked at the same time. And whatever way that we can facilitate those impacts and knowing and discussing those impacts sooner in the process is a good thing. But I wonder what the mechanism where we can actually facilitate those critical conversations where we say, okay, we really, we're going to make some hard decisions and it's going to impact this particular neighborhood. And we're going to have to know that right now. So, I don't... this is an interesting conversation. It's evolving. I understand everyone's recalcitrance and in 19.25.3. But I do think there's a way to move forward with this. I'm just not sure that this is the way to do it. And I'm hoping that we can through this meeting. And I'm going to yield the floor because I'm sure other people have ideas, but I'm hoping that we can come to a conclusion on this because it is an important issue. Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 36:41
Miss Farooq. Would you like to say something?

Iram Farooq 36:46
Yes. Through you, Mr. Chair. The only other thing I wanted to add, that I think Bob touched on a little bit. Is that our as we think about the need for electricity, it's going to be a little bit more complex than just driven by new projects. Because the more we are moving, and particularly electric load, you know, as we move towards net zero, we would anticipate that the new buildings would, would be employing a mix of electricity and renewables. And oftentimes a project might be using electricity and buying certainly at the early end, buying assets or racks, in which case they are sort of buying the virtue of the renewable energy but not able to generate it on site, which is a very real phenomenon that we have to anticipate in our urban context.

So I think, the thinking from both the staff perspective and also from the Planning Board perspective, you know, when the new elements proposed here in terms of the narratives that explain what the impact of the project is going to be from both the gas infrastructure and the electric infrastructure perspective, is perhaps a valuable one. Even in terms of building, everybody's understanding, about that infrastructure and also hoping it kind of elevated in the discourse through the project discussion. Similarly, with the urban design findings, I think the given that the challenge really is in being able to tie those two project specific impacts. So, if we were to take those first three components of this 24.8, 24.9, 25.2; I think those would be valuable things. Particularly coupled with the annual Planning Board presentations that we've talked about, as well as the staff, particularly with DPW those conversations with Eversource on a quarterly basis. So, think that just thinking through realistically what our level of ability to analyze, from a technical perspective, something that is happening in a different agency that isn't really entirely our area of expertise. I think that that creates a very challenging... the 25.3 would become a very challenging component. But I think everything else in this would in fact be extremely valuable for staff for the Planning Board and hopefully also for Eversource.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 40:01
Councillor, you are complete? Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 40:07
Thank you. I think this has actually been a helpful debate back and forth. And the letter certainly is helpful. I mean, I do really appreciate the difficulty of tying it to a particular project. But clearly Eversource agrees that there is a value to a more robust planning, for lack of a better word, process around this and so the initial parts of the suggested ordinance I think, make a lot of sense and they tie into that second paragraph of every sources letter where they talk about it would result in better overall outcomes for development in the city, better information flow and transparency, greater predictability of costs and impacts more efficient design and construction, less contentious permitting. How about that? Just some of the benefits. So, I mean, I, I think we're on the right track. And I'm glad that you mentioned the annual meetings, that that is something that's still under consideration, because I think that could, together with these quarterly not public meetings help just raise the visibility of what energy planning looks like. But I want to go back to what the analogy that Quinton was trying to make with the water and sewer. How did we get to requirements of developers that they have a certain ratio of mitigation for things? Because at the moment, the paragraph that we're sort of, you know, we're kind of debating whether to include or not that last one doesn't really say that. It goes back to the project by project, the Planning Board would have to do a thumbs up or thumbs down on a particular project, and that's not really what we're trying to do. We're trying to get to a point where we've anticipated the impact well enough that, that whoever is, you know, responsible for their share of it is at least mitigating their share. So how did you how do we get to that point with the water and sewer stuff?

Kathy Watkins 42:14
Through You, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the sewer, in terms of the sort of talk about this 4 to 1 ii, that's actually a state DEP regulation. And so, a lot of that goes back to, you know, the capacity of the sewer system, as well as combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows, and, you know, really goes back to very much a public health issue. But the 4 to 1 is a state DEP requirement.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 42:42
And so, then the DPU doesn't have a similar framework that would apply.

Robert Andrew 42:56
Vice Mayor, if I may, one of the differences on the electric infrastructure side is the costs of distribution infrastructure are socialized really around what was the end star service territory for most of the cities and towns inside of Route 495. So, it gets, the costs of it were sewer or water edition is born by a city or town for the most part. Electric infrastructure is born by a larger audience, and hence the state oversight of our distribution rates. So that's a difference in the driver between the two. And in a similar way, say that the monies that fund energy efficiency, you know, programs, some of the solar you know, programs, you know, come out of the bigger coffers rather than just an individual city or town.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 43:59
Okay, well, I mean, I guess it kind of, you lost me. It seems like there ought to be some uniform requirement regardless of what city the project is happening in that would say, as an energy system, we don't want to keep infinitely adding to it. We want to try to come up with, you know, both efficiencies and non-wires and all this other stuff, that vocabulary that I've been learning. So, how? How is DPU looking at that because it seems like it should apply to all cities is not just...

Robert Andrew 44:37
Well, they do. In any substation or transmission line projects. We always have to go through alternatives and non-wires alternative is one of them. Can we fix it with distribution investment? Can we fix it with batteries? Can we fix it with solar you know, the energy efficiency investments in Massachusetts are already at a billion dollars per year? We have been for several years, and it's projected to continue into the future for a minimum of five more years. So, on that side of things, we discussed that, you know, always as we go through the deciding processes.

Kathy Watkins 45:27
And I just, it's not directly related, but I wanted to touch on one other point that I think it was, Iram said was that it's not solely new development. We have a lot of, obviously older buildings that are really vastly underpowered. I met with a group of residents who live in up one of those nice brick buildings on Shepard Street. And they only have 200 amps or something coming in and that's one of many buildings in that neighborhood. That is, as people want to install air conditioning and you know, fancy new appliances and kitchens. All of those buildings need vaults and transmission things. And it's going to be immensely disruptive to neighborhoods. And, you know, it's sort of again, this game of musical chairs while you're building like, has somehow touched the thing where, you know, ISD won't let them do anything until their power is upgraded. And that's a good thing for them. But then then there's the question of where do you put it? And is it serving other buildings in the same area? And whose land is it on? Is it on city land? So, I mean, this is like, this is a really huge planning challenge. And I think the general public is just really not aware at all of how, how deficient many of the much of the service that we have is, so I don't know what we do with that. But well, it's definitely not just the big projects.

Robert Andrew 46:57
Those are issues we deal with every day across our entire system. In particularly in urban settings where land and spaces just that much more of a premium and, you know, to do it, but we have a group, you know that negotiates rights on a full-time basis. The right to put a utility pole somewhere or the right to put a volt you know, underground somewhere. So that that's an ongoing effort that we've, you know, always had to, to work with.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 47:28
Okay, thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 47:32
Councillor Siddiqui, please.

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 47:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair through you. So, one of the things the letter points out and takes issue with is the language "undue adverse impacts". So, and I understand why that could be a problem because it is subjective and so forth. So, I'm thinking. I concur with my colleagues on the other aspects of the amendments. I don't see a big problem with those, but in particular with point three, ideally, these narratives would help inform number three. And so, I'm thinking a few things. So, I understand your goal here is, you know, you'd prefer that we don't recommend these amendments. And also, I would ask, is there something within point three, you know, if we, if undue adverse impacts were further defined, for example. I'm curious, could we work with that definition in the future.

Kathy Watkins 49:00
I mean, I can start a little bit, I think the challenge that certainly as we've talked about this in terms of undo impacts, goes back again to this, like, what's the building that's requiring an additional substation. And so, because it's not talking about infrastructure that's only associated with that project. And so, I think that's where we get a little bit hung up on that language. Because, you know, the context of this discussion has been very much about, you know, the Fulkerson Street substation discussion. And so, you know, having the, again going back... I don't want to keep saying the same thing, but again, tying this sort of this larger, you know, system upgrade to a specific project. And both in terms of that's the one project that sort of was the tipping point. And then also, the issue that, you know, I think Bob spoke to a little bit which is about the timing of the projects. Because if you're evaluating it now, and then the project is delayed five years, and then in the meantime, other projects have come in. What does that mean, in terms of electrical capacity? As well as you know, gas or other utilities. Bob, if you have other thoughts from your perspective?

Robert Andrew 50:11
Yeah. Some of it is, it's going to be very difficult to apply. So, if I as a developer come into the neighborhood that Vice Mayor Devereux was talking about, and I buy a block, and I tear down the old houses, and I put in state-of-the-art efficient buildings provide more housing than was there before. But yet, I use more energy than those houses that were in this area use. Should not be allowed to do it? It would be a good thing. The upgrade of housing stock is very supportive of a net zero. It's one of the instrumental things, I think. And I just read the City of Boston's report. And certainly in their report, it's definitely instrumental in achieving that. So, on one hand, there's adverse impacts to electric supply because you're now going to be using more than was previously used. Yet overall the development would make the people's lives living there better, help advance net zero goals and other good things. So just a lot of moving pieces in making it in what's adverse. So, that along with the timelines it takes to develop projects. I just, I can picture myself sitting here some point in the future before Councillor Zondervan you know, and trying to explain where it went wrong, you know, someday.

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 51:57
Thank you for that.

Robert Andrew 51:58
But we're both young enough for that.

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 52:00
Thank you for that explanation, I think. I think that conversation is useful, right, just to illuminate the tradeoff. And I think that's part of what we want. And I think you know; the letter does say you want to be planning ahead and doing all these things. But I think that conversation is what the Councillors... I won't speak for everyone. But a lot of us want to recognize the tradeoffs and weight it and then make a decision. But anyway, I'll stop there. Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 52:31
The Mayor is next, but did you want to raise a point or actually the vice mayor, did you want to raise a point relative to this discussion?

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 52:40
Well, I mean, I think it's pretty much what Sumbul just said. That paragraph says, you know, it mentions the undue adverse impacts, but it does say against the overall benefits, and in the example you're giving, we could probably say that the benefits outweigh that, particularly if that housing was 100% affordable for instance, or, you know, so I don't think that that paragraph as written means that no projects would be approved. Even if they did put more burden on the energy system, it just means that we would be more deliberate in weighing the impacts versus the benefits. And, you know, this is, you know, at five o'clock tonight we're going to be having exactly the same conversation. It's like, you know, their benefits and their impacts and how do we know but and throughout the months that we've been talking about this other petition, we've struggled to know exactly what the impacts are, how do we quantify them? And so, I think what, what the first two paragraphs are trying to do is to help us at least be able to talk about them intelligently. Oh, now we know what these impacts are, rather than just sort of and that was I think what Councillor Carlone has said all along that that discussion never came up in the context of the Volpe. And, you know, in hindsight, it might have been beneficial. Sorry, Mr. Mayor.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 54:01
Is this related? Okay, if you'll forgive me, Mayor? Yes, go ahead, Councillor.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 54:07
Thank you, Mr. Chair for indulging me. I do want to question a couple of things. So, this example is very helpful illustrated is an assumption that a tear down of a housing project and the new built net zero housing project to replace it, even if it provided more housing wouldn't necessarily consume more electricity. That's not necessarily true. And, and furthermore, the language here says: only if it finds that the project would not cause undue adverse impact. So, if the Planning Board cannot determine that this specific project is going to cause a new substation, then it's not material to their decision. It's really if it as the example that you're proposing in order to build that new subdivision or rebuild it, we have to, you know, trench through the middle of Mass Avenue and put in some high voltage wire and that would be considered in a major adverse impact. Then that would be directly caused by that proposed project, and the planning board would take that into account. So, it's really only if they can in fact tie the project to the impact. If they can't, they can't and then it's not relevant.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 55:33
Finally, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Marc McGovern 55:38
I'm not sure it's going to be worth the wait. So okay. So, I mean, it sounds like there's agreement and even in Eversource letter and whatnot that having more predictability, better understanding what a new project is, what that's going to do to our energy consumption and better understanding that is important. And it's an important piece of information for us to have when making decisions. Right. I think there's agreement on that. Sounds like the actual language, there's, you know, there's some things that have to kind of be negotiated. So, you know, you've said a lot about what is not great about the language that's in front of us and what is problematic about the languages? What can you offer any language that gets us to what we want? That is?

That would actually work. I mean, ultimately, we all want, you know, we want this to work. I, and I would, I would say the, you know, for me, I mean, I agree that, you know, I want to make sure that whatever we do, gets us the information so that we're better informed. And so, the Planning Board is better informed, the community is better informed. I do worry about, you know, I worry a little bit about, I want to make sure that this isn't going to be a back way to stop development from happening. Right, because any development is going to add to the grid. So how do we figure? You know, how do we get to that if you're going to build a bunch of a bunch of housing, how to how do we work that out? But I think, I mean, I think the intention is that we, you know, we, we feel like, I feel like when I think listening to the comments that, you know, we kind of got into this situation with the Fulkerson because nobody was kind of watching the barn kind of thing. At least it doesn't feel that way. And then all of a sudden, we feel like, now we're in this crisis, and we have to do this, and we want to avoid that.

So, is there language that CDD or anybody else can amend or offer rather than just saying this language isn't working? What would work? How do we get to what we're what it is we're trying to do that doesn't have unintended consequences that we're all saying we don't want to have?

Iram Farooq 58:03
Through you Mr. Chair. One thought is to leave the rest of the document as is to adopt the first three pieces and just leave out the findings component of it. So if the issue is to make sure that we are better informed, and better prepared in terms of understanding the impacts, and being able to get it's a little bit like a TIS, a Transposition Impact Study, where we ask everybody to say, show us what the impact of your project are going to be. And then you might be asked to mitigate certain things but you're not, that's not the finding that your project cannot go forward. I mean there is a finding related to transportation impacts and similarly in Article 19 there, I believe, is already a finding related to, more generally to infrastructure. And so, our suggestion would be to just delete 19.25.3 and the consequent adopt the first three pieces, which would go a very long way, coupled with the non-zoning components that we've talked about, in enhancing our ability to do better infrastructure and energy planning.

Mayor Marc McGovern 59:31
I will follow up. So, does that.... So if we did that, if we get an energy impact study or whatever, you know, we call it and is there something binding there where we can require them to take certain actions or is it just a... you know, it's just a report that we get or that the Planning Board gets or can they then take that report and say, okay, in order for this to move forward, you know, we're going to require you to do ABC and D. We want to make sure it has some teeth to it too, right? If there's a study that comes back, you know, but maybe there's some middle ground between it's a yes or no versus...

Iram Farooq 1:00:14
Through you Mr. Chair, the Planning Board in terms of looking at projects and their impacts has fairly broad latitude in terms of conditions. So, there is... I'm trying to quickly look for this but... yeah. So, in Article 19, there is section 19.34, which basically says projects should not overburden the city infrastructure services and this talks about neighborhood roads, city water supply systems and sewer system. Maybe here we add electrical and gas infrastructure as well. And maybe that is the way, because that gives the Planning Board the anchor to be able to impose conditions and at the same time, we are providing through the narratives the other information. I'm completely speaking on the fly, making this up. I haven't consulted with the Law Department or with Jeff Roberts. So, if either of them thinks this is a really bad idea, they will let us know.

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 1:01:33
Mayor?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:01:35
Okay. Yes, Councillor Kelly?

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:01:40
Thanks. This is super interesting. And you didn't come out and say it, but the way I read it was you seem to be telling us we don't have the legal authority. This is the Eversource letter to pass this zoning amendment. So, do you think we have the legal authority to pass this zoning amendment?

Robert Andrew 1:02:03
At the risk of the fact that I'm not a lawyer. I wouldn't give you a legal opinion. I personally think you have the right to manage your city in the manner you and the residents see fit. I think from our point of view, looking at the ordinance that was there, it was pretty obvious that any developer could not answer the question. They would have to come to us, for an answer, because they are not privy to the details of the electric or gas infrastructure in the city. So, the fact that they would have to come to us for the answer. You know, we were looking at that and saying, okay, we can give an answer. But, you know, we've been chasing loads and peak loads my entire career. And we're very weather dependent. We're very weather driven. What we're seeing happening now is a lot of different dynamics with load, with a lot of solar in the course of the day. Our load profiles are changing. Our system peak is now early evening 6:30pm. In this this last summer, back and forth, so there's a lot of difficulty in actually determining, you know, drawing a line, right. When we get a substation that gets up to about 80% of capacity. That's when it really comes on our planning radar screen, to start to take a look at what are the potential solutions, because our solutions take years to implement. You know, we've been looking at it another substation here for a number of years. And I think most developers have similar timeframes. So, it's a very drawn out process with a lot of different moving parts.

A lot of opportunities to, to get behind, which, frankly, we're behind in the City of Cambridge, at this point right now from a substation capacity point of view. You know, so that's the main concern. You know how the City of Cambridge chooses to, to authorize projects and things like that, we will provide whatever information we can, whatever information you feel you need, we're not trying to be an impediment in any way. We just caution you that when we provide that information, it's a snapshot in time. And there's a lot of different things, a lot of different dynamics, changing it.

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:04:46
But you recommend that we not pass this particular part. I am understanding you say sort of two things. One, you'll give an answer. But two, you don't think we should pass this part of the suggested ordinance, because you don't have faith that your answer would accurately reflect the question asked.

Robert Andrew 1:05:10
Well, anecdotally, we just had a developer in anticipation of, you know, this ordinance come in and ask us to provide a letter stating we had substation capacity to supply them. And our answer was, well, we can't tell you that right now. We want to build a new substation, you know, we're here discussing it with you and everybody, but it will take us, if we had agreement tomorrow, it would be five plus years before that substation is in service.

Reasonably, because once we gain local approvals, we still have to go through the state signing process, and then we can begin construction and get it in service. So, it's a long process, we do have to get state approval for the most part. Certainly, this one word in would involve transmission construction, we must, in some cases, depending on the nature of the project, we don't have to go beyond the city or town. And so, it's very dependent on the nature of the city or towns, you know, laws themselves for what they can grant for zoning variances back and forth. So, we're not saying we won't support whatever efforts the city may put forward. We will. It's just a matter. It's quite cautionary for how you use the data. And a letter that we issued today, two years from today, that letter may be totally off base, depending on what's happened.

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:06:53
Okay, thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:06:55
So, what's brought all this forward, of course, in Fulkerson. And the appropriateness or not of locating such a facility at such a location. So, if we don't end up with a strategy of where to build and where not to build in the city. We're going to be back at this point again. Clearly, we'll be back at this point especially with less and less land available. In retrospect, any large site North Point, Volpi, East Cambridge river front back when, Alewife should have incorporated a location within it, that could facilitate your construction, kind of thing. Really, that's planning. So how do we do that going forward knowing where there will be weak spots? We don't know. But you have a sense in addition to this one. And what we have to calculate is approximately the size we need and working with the city developers saying this is going to happen. Either you're part of it or not, but it's going to happen if you want to service this building. And I hope that this leads to that.

Robert Andrew 1:08:50
But you raise a valid point. Traditionally, in terms of supplying electric service to any project, development, house, whatever the case may be, it's been our burden to find the property. Get the location, you know and build it and recover the costs through our electric rates that, you know, are, like I said previously, are socialized across a large customer base. In the past, we've had cases where developers came in and we said, Hey, could we, you know, locate a substation here and as a developer land is your asset. So, they're never happy you say, Sure, you know, we'll give it to you. But, you know, looking at your concerns that there may be a little more leverage than we've ever been able to apply in the past to do that.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:09:52
Other comments, Councillors, I see, Councillor, Zondervan hand. Councillor, and then the Vice Mayor.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:10:00
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do appreciate this discussion and I understand that we all have the Fulkerson substation on our brains. But I think this proposed amendment should be evaluated independently of that, even though it was triggered by it. It's not meant to directly address it. And, again, the way the language is now, I believe it gives the Planning Board sufficient flexibility to determine whether a specific project causes undue adverse impacts or not. And whether those impacts are worth it, given the potential benefits of that specific project. And so, I think based on what you've said, and what we've heard and learned today, this additional provision, by itself would not have prevented the Fulkerson Street situation. And I'm okay with that. I'm not introducing this in order to prevent that specifically, I think we need something like this, to make sure that when we are developing these projects, we are fully accounting for their impacts, not just do they ultimately trigger a new substation, which no individual project will, presumably. But also, what other infrastructure impacts do they have and what are the benefits of developing this project? And how do those two balance each other out? So, I'm in favor of moving this amendment forward. I'm happy to accept the edits from staff. I think those do help to clarify things. And I'm also intrigued by CDD's suggestion to modify section 19.34. So, I'm taking a little crack at that, but I'll read those out in a minute. And then I'm also thinking that we should add an amendment to say that the Planning Board will receive an annual report from the electric and gas utilities to help inform their decisions so that it's really codified in the law that this is expected to happen. So that we all understand that it will happen. And so, my proposal is that we move these amendments forward, I can give the additional amendments as well when the party is ready to receive them, and then to discuss it in the full council to see if we want to adopt them.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:12:49
Okay, I'm going to allow the Vice Mayor to offer her comments. Please.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:12:56
Well, I was going to suggest a slight rewording of that paragraph that might get at more, what we've been talking about. So, something along the lines of the Planning Board shall consider each permit in the context of whether its potential adverse impacts on the energy infrastructure and the community are outweighed by the public benefits of the project.

So that just explicitly talks about, that we want to look at this in the context of the trade-offs explicitly. Yeah. The planning board shall consider each project I mean, we talked about the special permit, but I'm assuming that this applies to any special permit each special permit project in the context of whether its potential adverse impacts on the energy infrastructure and the community are outweighed by the public benefits of the project.

So, I don't know. I mean, that's just a way of trying to say what we've all been talking about. I do understand what Quinton is saying that, you know, it doesn't. The way it's currently written doesn't prevent the Planning Board from granting a special permit. But the language could be read as more aggressive in terms of trying to stop projects rather than make this balancing and in the context of also adding the words that Iram suggested in the other section, whatever that was 19 point, whatever, thee four. I mean, you know that the mention of the traffic impact study, it's true. We have developers do these elaborate studies. And at the end of the day, it's not the sole thing that usually the Planning Board says: Well, everything else about the project is great, but boy, the traffic's going to be a nightmare.

You know, and that cuts both ways because a lot of people are like, I can't believe we're approving all these projects, and we know that traffic's going to be a nightmare, but at least we've been transparent about the degree of the nightmare we're creating the traffic and also, hopefully, are being transparent about what we're getting in return. I, you know, I don't know. I don't know how Quintin feels about this. But I wanted to put it out there so that we could talk about.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:15:43
Councillor Zondervan.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:15:45
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not opposed to considering it. I understand the intent of it. I guess. The one thing that does strike me as material, that is materially different is that it says, you're proposing that it says in the context of adverse impacts on the energy infrastructure and the community. And I guess I would take issue with that, because we're not concerned about adverse impacts on the energy infrastructure, that's Eversource's job.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:16:30
Well, then I suppose, if I may, we could say in the context of its additional burden, or maybe burden isn't the right demands on the energy, additional demands on the energy infrastructure and the adverse impacts on the community. So I mean, I understand the adverse impacts of the community are things like a substation having to be built in a residential neighborhood or a massive, you know, tunneling under massive or whatever you want to describe, but, it is the burdens that are presumably causing those. Right. So, I was trying to tie those two together.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:17:12
So, as chair, is there an amendment that the two of you are putting together. And I'll ask one of you or two of you to merge that?

Did you want to add something else, Councillor?

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:17:33
I could take a few minutes and work with the Vice Mayor to wordsmith that. I also wanted to introduce a couple of other amendments. Whenever you like.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:17:46
You haven't yet added an amendment. Correct. We weren't sure earlier if you had. Not yet. Yes. Okay. Councillor.

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:17:56
Thanks. So, I'm not exactly sure where the various amendment discussion is going but I think the hang up is in the proposed requirement for the Planning Board to find, rather than to discuss. And I'm understanding Eversource and city staff to say there's no reasonable way the Planning Board could actually find. And so, if we were to pass such a thing, what would in affect be saying is, we wouldn't grant anything because the Planning Board could never ever find. And I guess if that's what we want to do, we can do that. A different way of approaching this would be the Planning Board just has a non-finding discussion about the impact on utilities. And I think I understand why electricity is different from traffic. Is different from stormwater. Is different from wastewater. Is different from drinking water. It is because it is a completely different set of regulations. It's not controlled by us it's controlled by DPU. And the list of differences goes on. So, I would support the discussion part and if we're going to go with the finding part then let's just have a moratorium on development and be clear about that.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:19:18
So, we're just going to hold for a couple of minutes so that the amendment is worded in the manner in which they wish it. Definitely looks like a team project. Yes, God.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:19:56
If I may Mr. Chair. So, I was just informed by Ms. Farooq that we probably shouldn't amend section three, four, and add this section 25.3 at the same time, and I do agree with her. So perhaps what we could do is... I can propose my amendments to Section 19.34. And we can discuss that and then see if we want to go that route or go with this section 25.3.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:20:37
Where is that? That's a new petition.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:20:41
Well, I suppose it would be a different section of Article 19. But...

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:20:47
No, but it's not before us. So, we would have... that would be a new petition.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:20:53
Okay. Well, I'm certainly open to that procedurally. But what I'm suggesting is that we at least discuss that possibility so that we can decide whether we want to go that route or stick with the current approach.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:21:12
I believe that we have the expert in the house, can we discuss something that is not before us? 19.34? Is that the correct number?

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:21:27
Yes, Mr. Chair,

Nancy Glowa 1:21:30
I'd have to look at that more closely in the context of how that language relates to this language. Generally speaking, you cannot be discussing proposed amendments that were not advertised and in any way that alters the fundamental character of the petition that was advertised. So, I would be reluctant to ever advise that you should be looking at a whole different section of the zoning ordinance, without advertising that is, in particular.

But if I could take this opportunity to add a few comments on this discussion. I would like to. One of the things I just wanted to caution people in this whole conversation, whether it might be in a subsequent consideration of amending 19.34, or in this 19.25.3, is to remind everyone to be circling back to one of the fundamental questions, which is about burdening the infrastructure. As I've always understood it, not only does DPU regulate, on a statewide basis, but DPU sets the rates for the utility company. And in fact, those rates, and please correct me, you guys understand this much better than me, but the rates are established based upon much larger service areas. So sometimes, we for example, have objected to a particular rate increase on the basis that Cambridge isn't using that much and DPU's whole system of districts. You know, the argument that came back was, well, you're part of this district. And even if people in western Massachusetts do this, you know, you're stuck with it or whatever. So, it's a statewide set of concerns. And it's regulated in much broader geographic areas and service distribution areas, or areas of usage, than just in Cambridge. So, I think we should be... I think you all, I would respectfully suggest should be particularly careful about asking the Planning Board to be opining on burdens versus advantages or positive impacts of the project because... I just don't think that the impacts of a new development on the utility infrastructure, the statewide regulated utility system, is particularly quantifiable. At least to most lay people. And I don't think that that's within the Planning Board's expertise. So, I would just like to throw that out there for consideration about how to think about perhaps looking at it in terms of whether electricity usage is increased, and whether the increase in usage is justified. Or perhaps there are other considerations that the gentleman from Eversource could, you know, add to this conversation, but I, I did want to bring back that whole issue about the statewide regulation of utility and how impacts that a project brings in Cambridge are not necessarily something that can be measurable to be offset in the statewide utility regulation system.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:24:58
Councillor Zondervan.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:25:00
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I still had the floor. While we have you, Miss Solicitor, if I could ask regarding this annual report, would it be appropriate to add it into the section as an expectation that the Planning Board would receive such a report?

Nancy Glowa 1:25:23
Through you Mr. Chair, again, I think that that's not something that's before the Council right now. So, it couldn't be added into this Zoning petition. I don't know enough about it to know whether it's properly a zoning requirement, but I don't think it could be added into the scope of this petition at this time. Perhaps, Kathy...

Kathy Watkins 1:25:39
The only thing I think I would just add to that, as we've talked about at the last hearing, was that it was seemed more appropriate to do a Council order and then have a council order response because again, it's not tied to specific buildings. So, it doesn't necessarily seem to be appropriate under zoning, but I think everyone agreed it was the right thing to do. And we're all going committed to doing it. So, there is an outstanding council order that we will be responding to where we will commit to do that on an annual basis. And so, I think that's already underway. And so, it doesn't seem necessary or necessarily appropriate to add into this language.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:26:15
Okay. I yield the floor.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:26:18
So, where did you want to add something Councillor Mallon.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:26:22
I just had a point of order. Is there an expiration date on this petition? And what is it?

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 1:26:29
I don't have the specific date in front of me, but I believe it's sometime in December.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:26:36
If I may. I believe it's Christmas. Yeah, the same as the CambridgeSide.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:26:42
And I'm sure Eversource will come on Christmas to talk about this.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:26:47
So is this the last possible date that we can talk about this before we send it to the full Council with any recommendation

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:26:56
it's pretty close.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:26:58
Okay. The only reason I'm asking is I'm not sure... I feel like we've had a really healthy conversation here. And I'm not sure I'm fully ready to move this to the Council with any kind of recommendation. And I'm wondering if we can refile it and have a better conversation, a more complete conversation in the new year with the new Council. I just don't feel comfortable moving this forward, given the unknowns that we have right now, unless we were to just strike that last 19.25.3, which seems to be the one that is the biggest challenge right now for all of us. So, those are just my thoughts. Thank you.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:27:41
Well, I should go on record and say, I have no problem with point three.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:27:47
As a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we vote on all four amendments individually and that way we can decide which ones to send forward and which ones.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:27:58
You have an amendment?

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:28:02
I've just been told it's not allowed. We could amend 25.3, but I'm not... Right. But I'm not sure... that... I mean, based on what Ms. Glowa just said, I'm not sure that the amendments being proposed would help in that regard. So, I mean, I guess my preference would be to, to keep the original language that's before us and we just vote on it. And if people are not comfortable sending it forward, then we can file a new petition regarding that specific piece.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:28:47
The original language as amended by community development. We have to vote on that first.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:28:53
First... but I do think that we have an opportunity to move the other three paragraphs forward, so I think we should vote on those as well.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:29:05
Mr. Chairman. I thought we were actually getting pretty close. So, and to Ms. Glowa's point, the more succinct language that the mayor has suggested. And I think even the version that Quinton and I were wordsmithing doesn't use the word burden. So, I totally understand we shouldn't use a word like burden. If other towns are going to say, oh, there's Cambridge burdening us, again, they very well could say that, actually, when we're talking about socializing rates, because obviously, most of the growth is occurring in Boston and Cambridge and those rates, if they are going up is probably more due to that, but maybe not and I won't say that. But, you know, the what the mayor wrote was... talked about impact. And impact is a pretty neutral word. It can be positive or negative. It's just impact. So, I didn't think that we were prejudicing the case. By having some compromised language and, or, or whatever. So, I would like to try to at least send this on to the Council today, maybe without a recommendation so that we can continue the conversation this term.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:30:13
Okay, so we would like to hear the impact statement as referred to by the Vice Mayor.

Mayor Marc McGovern 1:30:26
Mr. Chair, so yeah, that's what I what I offer, but if this not, I mean, I'd like your feedback... does this deal with a concern when they read it, does it? You guys have it? Does it? Does it satisfy the concern or not? And I do think we could wordsmith it. I do. Just a question Councillor Zondervan had mentioned voting... voting the four amendments individually, which, but again, we would eventually have to take a vote on that. I mean, I could vote yes on the first three and no on the fourth one.

But then we're still going to have to take a vote on it as a whole. We're not just forwarding three amendments, right.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:31:10
We would have to vote to take out

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 1:31:13
If can just do some housekeeping. Is that the City Council forwarded the petition to this committee for review and report. So, this committee will be sending a report back to the city council on the entire petition, all four paragraphs. So potentially, what you would actually be saying is that you either recommend or not recommend the petition minus a particular paragraph. You would not be voting on the paragraphs individually.

Mayor Marc McGovern 1:31:43
Okay. Through you, Mr. Chair?

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:31:49
Yes, I'm happy to. So, the mayor's amendment to or amendment by substitution, the section 19.25.3 reads: The Planning Board shall grant the special permit after weighing the impact the project will have on the utilities energy grid versus the overall community benefits of said project.

Nancy Glowa 1:32:26
Mr. Chair, it would be very helpful if the clerk could read it one more time for us.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:32:31
Yes, of course. Thank you. We're discussing this. That's not an amendment before us. Okay.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 1:32:46
So, the language for discussion, and I'm reading, I believe the mayor's handwriting so correct me if I'm misreading anything. After....

Yeah, the planning board shall...

Mayor Marc McGovern 1:33:09
So, for discussion, so this is 19.25.3: The Planning Board shall grant the special permit after weighing the impact the project will have on the city's energy grid versus the overall community benefits of said project.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 1:33:45
Mr. Mayor, if you could read that one more time.

Mayor Marc McGovern 1:33:48
The Planning Board shall grant the special permit after weighing the impact the project will have on the city's energy grid versus the overall community benefits of said project. Again, I don't know if that works or not. But so, I mean, the way I envisioned it is they look at it and they say that this project is going to add x to the energy grid, and that's going to cause a problem. Or they can look at it and say, yeah, it's going to add x to the energy grid. But given the overall benefits of the project, we recommend it going forward. It gives them a little bit more flexibility. I don't know.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 1:34:44
So, what I have in the record is that: the Planning Board shall grant of the special permit after weighing the impact the project will have on the city's energy grid versus the overall community benefits of set project.

Mayor Marc McGovern 1:35:00
So, does that address the concerns?

Nancy Glowa 1:35:05
Through you Mr. Chair. I think where we're hung up is "city's energy grid" and whether that's the appropriate concept and how the Planning Board would, whether they're positioned to evaluate the impact the project will have on the city's energy grid. And it's not clear to me what the city's energy grid is. It's part of a regional system. Do you mean like a particular substation or whether Another one is needed or the transmission lines that go everywhere? So, to me that's, that's still somewhat unclear.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:35:42
I assume some analysis is being done by people at the front table. Clearly Eversource analyzes each project. I don't know of DPW is involved in that. So, there would be an analysis done that could be presented to the Planning Board. At this stage

Nancy Glowa 1:36:18
Through you, Mr. Chair. I think what we're looking at is instead of saying "city's energy grid", perhaps to use the language that was proposed for 24.8, which says, but to delete the word cities and to simply say electricity, infrastructure and supply, and we would propose deleting the word cities in 24.8 and in 24.9, where it talks about the city's method, gas delivery, also delete the word cities. And I don't think there's one in 25.2, but in 25.3. We think that the mayor's amendment might be more understandable to say instead of city's energy grid, the electricity infrastructure and supply. Oh, so excuse me, electricity and natural gas, infrastructure and supply.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:37:24
Glad you all got that. Do you have it?

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 1:37:34
So what I'll do is I'll read the whole amendment assuming that that language suggested by the Solicitor was included, and it will read as follows: The Planning Board shall grant the special permit after weighing the impact the project will have on the electricity and natural gas infrastructure versus the overall community benefits of said project.

Nancy Glowa 1:37:56
Through you Mr. Chair, its infrastructure and supply. And we would also recommend deleting the word cities in the second line of both 24.8 and 24.9.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:38:14
Eliminating you said right. Taking out city's?

Nancy Glowa 1:38:19
Correct.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:38:32
Councillor Mallon.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:38:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair through you, please.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:38:37
Sorry.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:38:39
I just have concerns around even this amendment and going back to the planning board saying that the planning board was also concerned that its members do not have the expertise necessary to evaluate the information required by the petition and was therefore hesitant to require it. How has that changed with this amendment?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:38:55
I imagine they would receive a report. They don't necessarily have the expertise. They don't have urban design expertise, but their urban design is that report. So, I assume there would be a report, again by the front desk.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:39:12
Are we assuming that or do we know that?

Kathy Watkins 1:39:17
Through you Mr. Chair. I can speak on that a little bit. I think it's a we feel like I mean, I personally haven't obviously talked about this, but feel like the language is improved from, from my perspective, it still has the same... similar concerns in terms of weighing the impact of the project versus the overall energy system. And so, I think we would have some more concerns and I would imagine the Planning Board would as well. I don't know if Iram has more.

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:39:44
Thank you. So, I, I appreciate the amendment. And I appreciate the updated language. I just still keep going back to this original concern around the expertise even if there was a report around the benefits versus the impact. So, on I'm going to yield the floor to Councillor Kelley, but I just want to go on record saying I still have concerns.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:40:06
Councillor.

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:40:08
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a piece of paper to look at, but I understood the reading to say the Planning Board will grant the permit. And I would put in something like the Planning Board may grant the permit after having looked at these various things.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:40:28
I think that makes sense. Fellow councillors?

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:40:36
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do also appreciate the amendment. But I do feel like it's moving away from the original intent of the petition, which was not, necessarily, looking at the supply. it was looking at undue adverse impacts of the project. And then any additional needed utility infrastructure. I do agree with my colleagues who are raising concerns about the Planning Board's ability to determine the impact of a project on the supply. Because again, even Eversource is not able to determine that let alone the planning board. So, I think the original language was getting at are there undue adverse impacts of this project? And then, is there specific additional utility infrastructure that's needed for this project? And then how does that weigh against the benefits of the project going forward? So that's a little bit more specific than how does it impact the supply which we may not be able to determine. I also think that we are in danger of, you know, trying to make this up on the fly a little too quickly. And given the upcoming deadlines, I think we might be better off putting on this petition, I expect the outcome would be that we would not for Section 25.3 although I will vote to do to afford it but, but my colleagues may choose differently and that we can move forward the other three sections so that that can be incorporated into the into the Planning Board's process ASAP.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:42:43
OK, we have to vote on amendments. We don't have a specific... a changed proposal, petition in front of us until we vote on amendments. So, I'm assuming we have to vote on the city amendment or is it one draft now? Okay. So first we have to propose the initial city amendments on page 2.a. Which were added or crossed out. Pretty basic changes. So, all those in favor of accepting the amendments on page 2.a.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 1:43:47
If could just interject. So, the motion sounds like, that you're making, Councillor Carlone would be to amend by substitution the document that is attached to your agenda as Page five exhibit 2.a. Is that correct?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:44:06
Yes.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 1:44:06
And then and then you would take, take a vote on it.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:44:09
So, as the clerk just said, all those in favor say aye. Those against? So that is passed unanimously. And now we have another substitution, which I imagine you must read.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 1:44:27
So again, I Someone has to make the proposal. if I understand what you're referring to, is, the proposal would be to amend paragraph 19.25.3 of the amended or the proposed amended language to go back to the city council to read the planning board shall grant the special permit after weighing the impact the project will have on the electricity and natural gas infrastructure and supply versus the overall community benefits of side project.

Mayor Marc McGovern 1:45:01
Mr. Chair. Before you call for a vote on that. Councillor Zondervan said he didn't feel that the Planning Board could do that because Eversource might not be able to do that. Is that correct? Because I mean, I won't make that as a motion. I was just suggested language. But if that language doesn't work, I am not going put it forward.

Robert Andrew 1:45:30
Yeah, I think one of the concerns is at the point where the projects being approved or is moving for approval to the point in time where the project is actually constructed and consuming energy, that's generally several years anyway. And so, there are other moving parts in the system that rise and fall and so the net outcome is a difficult thing to determine.

Mayor Marc McGovern 1:45:58
So, I will not put myself language forward.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:46:01
Fine, I would like to ask a question. I mean, people come to you, and they need your John Hancock, I would imagine to even start construction, or they would be foolish. So, as an architect, I know I would need to get your sign off. And that is just before construction. Is that how you handle that? Or is it with the window of time?

Robert Andrew 1:46:32
Well, you'd be surprised what some people do before they come and talk to us. But no, I mean, generally, in the design process, they'll have to describe, you know, their loads, how large they are, how many feeders they would like us to supply, you know, into the facility for bigger projects. And we will work that out with the existing infrastructure that's nearby to try and do it. The next level up other than the feeders in the street, to actually connect to the project, is the substations behind it that are supplying load. And what we do within an area when we have multiple substations is, we work to balance load by moving them between the substations over time. So, the result is anytime we come forward with a new substation, it should mean the substations in the existing area, multiple substations, are all, you know, up in the 90 plus percent, you know of capacity ratings. And that's kind of general design, you know, principles that way. So, that's always... there are a lot of moving parts. We can move some loads from station A to station B to stretch things out. So, where the break point is, it's rare that we can point a finger at one project and say "That's it. That's a line." Because if we're at 99% on a substation, and some people decide to install air conditioning, we go over the top, and that isn't something that happens, you know, that they come talk to us about.

Mayor Marc McGovern 1:48:18
Mr. Chair?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:48:20
Yes.

Mayor Marc McGovern 1:48:20
So, what we can do, I mean, again, I think given the calendar and when this expires or whatnot, what we can do... I'm not going to vote in favor of 19.25.3. I would suggest the people work, get together and work on language and see if there's a way to create that language and then that can come back in when this becomes before us again, as an additional amendment. But I wouldn't vote for it today as is given that we've heard but maybe in the meantime, people can get together with CDD and Eversource and come up with something that does work.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:49:03
I was going to propose to Councillor Zondervan exactly that. Is that your wish to move forward with the first three?

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:49:13
Yes, Mr. Chair, I believe that would be the right way to go. We do have another amendment to

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:49:19
Yes, I know. City. The city's eliminating the word cities. Yes. So, it's in two places. Is that correct? So yes, so the did you want to add something please?

Nancy Glowa 1:49:40
No, thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you yes. It would just be in 19.24.8 the word city's before where it says electricity, infrastructure and supply. And then in 19.24.9, again, where it says city's methane gas delivery to delete the word city. In that place as well.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:50:01
But just the word city's in both cases correct, okay, so the amendment is to remove the word city's in two locations, the second line of 19.24.8 and the second line of 19.24.9. All those in favor say aye. Thank you. All those against. So that's unanimously approved. So, Counselor, Zondervan. Yes. We have 10 minutes. So, we've told so we're going to get we're going to do this. We will hold on the fourth element. Okay, that's so we're going to strike 19.25.3 that's the motion and to refer this, the remainder to the full Council for consideration. So, it's two separate votes. First is to strike 19.25.3 All those in favor say aye.

Councillor Quinton Zondervan 1:51:22
I'm a no.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:51:25
okay, you don't have to cough when you say aye. That wasn't part of my message. Those against say no, no. Oh, I'm hearing multiple No's. No, no. Okay. Okay. So, I would say that's passed 6 to 1. And then secondly referring this with what kind of recommendation? Favorable recommendation. This would be 19.24.8, .9 and 25.2

Councillor Alanna Mallon 1:52:04
With a favorable recommendation?

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:52:05
Yes, the first three. All those in favor say aye. Those against say no. So that's unanimous. There is no public, so we did not have public comment. Just unless John wishes to speak, okay, other public. So, I thank you all for coming. Eversource we're developing quite a close relationship, and we want to build on that to everybody's benefit. So, thank you all for coming. Have a good holiday.

Councillor Carlone adjourned the meeting at 3:53pm

1. That the proposed Special Permit Criteria amendments to Article 19 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance (as attached) be referred to the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board for hearing and report.
RESULT: REFERRED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY THE COMMITTEE Next: 12/9/2019 5:30pm

2. A communication was received from the Community Development Department with suggested edits
to the Utility Service Zoning Petition.
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE

The documents received by the committee may be viewed here:
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2574

For the Committee,
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair

Order     Dec 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
COUNCILLOR CARLONE
ORDERED: That the proposed amendments to Article 19 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance (as attached) be referred to the Ordinance Committee and the Planning Board for hearing and report.

Committee Report #4
The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Dec 3, 2019 beginning at 12pm in the Sullivan Chamber.

Present: Kelley, Devereux, Carlone, Siddiqui
Absent: Toomey

The Public Safety Committee will meet to discuss the following policy order: An amendment to Chapter 2.128 Surveillance Ordinance.

Councillor Kelley called the meeting to order at 12:05pm.

Councillor Craig Kelley 0:25
Alright everyone, sorry for being late. My bicycle lock froze. So, we're adjusting. The call of the meeting: This is a Public Safety Committee meeting and we are meeting to discuss the following policy order an amendment to chapter 2.128 Surveillance Ordinance and that the order asked for the Public Safety Committee to have a hearing. You should have a piece of paper titled Public Safety Committee on the front and then on the back there is a proposed new amendment. This is a meeting of the Public Safety Committee. Which is not at all the same thing as the Ordinance Committee. So, at some point, this goes, arguably to the Ordinance Committee, and then that committee will decide whether they want this to move forward and they do that with a five person vote or not. So if we could just go around the table and introduce ourselves. My name is Craig Kelly. I'm the chair of the committee.

Mark Gutierrez 1:26
Mark Gutierrez, council aid.

Emiliano Falcon 1:30
My name is Emiliano Falcon. I'm from the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 1:34
Dennis Carlone, City Council.

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 1:36
Sumbul Siddiqui, City Council.

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner 1:40
Branville Bard, Police Commissioner.

Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 1:42
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor.

Joe Barr, Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation 1:50
Joe Barr, Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation.

Will Durbin, Chief of Staff to Mayor McGovern 1:53
Will Durbin, Chief of Staff to Mayor McGovern.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:56
Jan Devereux, Vice Mayor.

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 2:00
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk.

Councillor Craig Kelley 2:05
And this meeting is being recorded. There are members of the public, I think what we will do is we'll hear from the proponent which is sort of the ACLU. They don't specifically... Will wants to go first. So I guess we'll hear from Will first who's here on behalf of the mayor, as well as himself because he's interested in this issue. Then we'll hear from the ACLU. We will ask clarifying questions. We will open up for public comment. And then when public comment is over, we can have a discussion about whether we think this is what needs to go forward or if it should be modified or whatever. Okay. That being said, Will.

Will Durbin, Chief of Staff to Mayor McGovern 2:43
Thank you Mr. Chair, and thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of Mayor McGovern who is unable to attend today’s hearing due to illness.

When the Council passed the Surveillance Ordinance in December of 2018, it was with the goals of safeguarding the liberties and free exercise of the rights Cambridge residents have come to enjoy, and to create as transparent a lens as possible into the emerging technologies that we are coming to relay on in the modern age. We cannot foresee the evolutions of these technologies, or imagine all the ways in which a bad faith actor might use data collected for seemingly benign purposes to erode a person’s right to privacy, so the current Surveillance Ordinance in effect today requires that the public be made fully aware of municipal uses for surveillance technologies, and to give consent when the public’s eye is turned inward onto itself.

Even with the current surveillance ordinance, the City would be required to submit an impact report and seek the Council’s permission before using or acquiring facial recognition technology, so you may well ask yourselves why the petitioners thought it necessary to amend the ordinance with the text under consideration today. In just a moment, I will turn things over to Emiliano Falco to explain the broader dangers which facial recognition technology pose to a free and independent people, and to underscore how a frequently inaccurate technology discriminates against those which it surveils, particularly women of color.

I wish to only add here on behalf of the Mayor that the unregulated and intrusive use of facial recognition technology is so onerous to the idea of a free republic, so intrusive to our daily lives and expectations of due process, and has been shown by other governments to be so menacing and intimidating to our cherished notion of free assembly, free speech, and freedom of thought that the Council is right to erect the further barrier that we seek with the amendment before you today. Before some future Council wishes to authorize this most intrusive of surveillance technologies, they will have to go through the same process we are engaged with today, hear the public, and consider amendments through a lengthy amendment process.

So at this point, I'll turn things over to Emilio.

Emiliano Falcon 4:57
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning.

My name is Emiliano Falcon. I am the Policy Counsel for the Technology for Liberty Program at the ACLU of Massachusetts. On behalf of the ACLU and our more than 15,000 members and supporters in Cambridge, I submit this testimony in strong support of the ordinance introduced by Mayor Marc McGovern and Councilors Craig Kelley and Sumbul Siddiqui to place a ban on the municipal government’s use of face surveillance technology.

Face surveillance technology poses unprecedented threats to civil rights, civil liberties, and open, democratic society. Numerous studies have shown the technology is inherently racially biased. The technology poses particularly severe threats to the rights and liberties of immigrants and communities of color. Unchecked, this technology can be used by government agencies to conduct the mass tracking of people in public spaces. Instead of accepting that technologies like face surveillance will determine the boundaries of our rights, we must chart an intentional course into the 21st century, maintaining firm democratic control over our society and our lives. To protect residents now and into the future, the City of Cambridge should join San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Somerville in taking action to prohibit the use of face surveillance technology by the local government.

What is face surveillance technology, and how can it be used? Face surveillance technology uses algorithms designed to analyze images of human faces. In one of its forms, a computer program analyzes an image of a person’s face, taking measurements of their facial features to create a unique “faceprint.” Face surveillance algorithms then use these faceprints, in combination with databases like the driver’s license system at the Registry of Motor Vehicles and surveillance camera networks, to identify and track people en masse, usually without their knowledge or consent.

Some companies are also selling so-called “emotion detection” systems, which they claim can determine whether someone is happy, sad, honest, or deceitful. Research from experts at Northeastern University has demonstrated it is not possible to discern how someone is feeling by looking at their face. But companies are nonetheless selling these tools across the world.

Face surveillance as currently used is unregulated, biased, and harmful to immigrants, people of color, and privacy. Face surveillance is entirely unregulated in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, the spread of this technology is occurring in the dark, absent public debate or democratic oversight. Government agencies are adopting it despite the absence of privacy regulations, the technology’s inaccuracy, and the threats it poses to free and open societies. Face surveillance is racially biased. Among other issues, facial recognition technology is not always accurate—despite what you may have seen on television shows like CSI. And these inaccuracies are more likely to unfairly harm people of color and other oppressed groups. For example, MIT researchers here in Cambridge found that face recognition software sold by prominent technology companies misclassified Black women up to 35 percent of the time. Another study found that so-called “emotion detection” software inaccurately classified Black men’s faces as more angry and contemptuous than white faces, even in pictures where all the men are smiling. No Cambridge municipal department should use technology that is inherently racially biased. Face surveillance technology harms immigrant families. The Trump administration’s vicious attacks on immigrant communities have made immigrants fearful of engagement with public institutions, including schools and local police. The use of face surveillance systems would further chill immigrant participation in public life because the technology can be used to track where people go, and when, in real-time and retroactively. A ban on the use of face surveillance will ensure immigrants in Cambridge are not tracked or catalogued as they move through public space or public institutions. Face surveillance is a threat to Cambridge residents’ civil rights and civil liberties. Especially concerning is how this technology affects First Amendment rights and freedoms. If the government can track everyone who goes to a place of worship, a political rally, or seeks reproductive medical care or substance use treatment, we lose our freedom to speak our minds, freely criticize the government, pray to the god we want, and access healthcare in private. The authoritarian government in China is deploying face surveillance in that country to control and oppress people; indeed, as academics have observed, face surveillance technology is the perfect tool for social control. Cambridge must chart the opposite course, to protect and defend privacy, civil rights, and open society today and for future generations.

Today, Cambridge has a critical opportunity: Your City can pump the brakes on the spread of this dangerous technology, before it is adopted and used to track Cambridge residents and visitors. The Ordinance presented by Mayor Marc McGovern and Councilors Kelley and Siddiqui will protect the people of Cambridge and free and open society and, at the same time, protect City employees.

First, the Ordinance before you amends the City’s surveillance ordinance to ban the City of Cambridge from obtaining, retaining, requesting, accessing, or using either face surveillance technology or information obtained from it. Second, it provides that the inadvertent or unintentional receipt, access of, or use of any information obtained from face surveillance technology will not be a violation of this ban if the receipt, access of, or use of such information was not requested or solicited; and such receipt, access, or use is logged into the Annual Surveillance Report. This language strikes the right balance between protecting Cambridge residents and allowing Cambridge City departments, including the Police Department, to conduct normal business without unnecessary interference. Ultimately, faced with the question of whether Cambridge should pass this ban, Councilors ought to consider what kind of community they want to foster into the 21st century.

Constant surveillance doesn’t just harm our collective rights and freedoms— it also has adverse effects on health, well-being, and community trust. Surveillance increases not only our fears and uncertainty but also personal anxiety. Privacy advocates have long warned about the psychological consequences of being watched and observed by unaccountable, faceless entities.6 Face surveillance magnifies these concerns and extends them into a truly new and frightening territory by totalizing the surveillance of our movements in public space.

Cambridge is the most innovative city in Massachusetts. Approving this ordinance will send a message to the rest of the state, country, and world that civil rights and civil liberties are a priority in the digital 21st century, and show that Cambridge is leading the way. We strongly urge you to support this critical and commonsense proposal. The ACLU looks forward to serving as a resource to the City and the Council throughout this process, so please don’t hesitate to contact me or Kade Crockford if you have any questions or seek further information. Thank you very much.

Councillor Craig Kelley 13:48
Thank you, Emiliano. Now, if you haven't noticed the text of the proposed legislation is on the backside of the document that says Public Safety Committee it is very, very short. Does anyone have any clarifying questions for Emiliano? Okay. Seeing Vice Mayor.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 14:10
Thank you for your statement. I also read an editorial that Carol Rose, who I guess is the director of the ACLU Mass wrote for the Commonwealth magazine that made many of the same points and I certainly agree with it. Is there any legislation being considered at the state level? Is this all being done city by city? Is this the wrong kind of time to ask that question. But that's a clarifying question, isn't it?

Emiliano Falcon 14:34
Yeah. Through the Chair. So we are working city by city banning this technology and we are also proposing a moratorium at the state level. We are working with legislators to introduce this moratorium of the use of this technology by the... statewide until there is a special authorization by Beacon Hill that has protections and safeguards for the use of this technology. But yes, we're working to pass a moratorium on the state level until it's regulated.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 15:13
And would that apply to the RMV? Because in Carroll Rose's editorial, she said that the RMV has been using this technology since 2006. And that they are actively matching driver's license photos and sending them to law enforcement.

Emiliano Falcon 15:29
Yes.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 15:30
So I mean..

Emiliano Falcon 15:31
Yes, the moratorium will impact the RMV use of the driver's license database. So if the moratorium passes, they will not be able to do that anymore.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 15:42
Do you have any sense of when that moratorium could pass or if it would pass?

Emiliano Falcon 15:47
So... the hearing was a month ago. So we are working to see if it can pass this session or if not the next one?

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 15:56
Okay,

Emiliano Falcon 15:57
But we hope it passes. Thank you.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 15:58
Yeah. Thank you.

Councillor Craig Kelley 16:01
Other clarifying questions? Councillor Siddqui.

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 16:04
Just to add. Vice Mayor Devereux, one of the sponsors is Rep. Rogers... of that bill and it's a Senator Creem, but I can, if you want, I can forward you the the bill.

Councillor Craig Kelley 16:21
Other questions? Okay, I'm seeing none. Any comments from city staff on this?

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner 16:32
Through the Chair. So, from public safety standpoint, I just like to point out the Cambridge Police Department, we don't have facial recognition technology, have no desire to acquire that technology. Personally, I can support a ban of the technology. However, I would think that that ban should come with very limited exceptions. I think if you can think of a scenario where using the technology could be helpful, then you might want to guard against a complete and total ban of that technology. Obviously, constant surveillance is not something that I'm supportive of. But limited use in a very specific set of circumstances. I think that you can see a scenario where the technology could be useful. Other than that, yeah, I can support a band of facial recognition technology.

Nancy Glowa 17:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair through you. We don't have any concerns from a legal point of view as far as the way it's... the concept, but I would add that in keeping with what the Commissioner just said, because it is, in fact cumbersome to go through the amendment process, I would just offer the possibility for the committee and the council to consider having an exception process whereby if the police department for example, thought there was some unique use that would be appropriate in some particular circumstance, then that department or the city manager could bring it to the Council for consideration. So there might be some sort of an exception if it's brought to the Council's attention before such use and that my only other comments on the actual prohibition language are my concern about staff inadvertently or unintentionally receiving such information. So I would suggest in "A" where it talks about it would be unlawful for city staff to obtain, retain, request, access or use that we put in there the intentional language that is included further down. And in "B" where it says the inadvertent or unintentional receipt, access of or use would not be a violation so long as the city staff did not request or solicit etc. I again think that there, adding the word "unintentional" would be helpful to clarify that... you know, let's say you're on a computer and you go somewhere and something pops up. You didn't intend to do that but perhaps you clicked a button that requested that page to open maybe that's not a great example but... so just for consideration I wanted to put out those two possible changes as this process continues. Thank you.

Councillor Craig Kelley 19:43
Thank you Ms. Glowa. I think I got the first... the second change which would be to number one under Section B: the city staff did not request or solicit the. And then you're suggesting we insert "unintentional" receipt is that..

Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 19:59
Sorry, Mr. Chair, are you talking about a or b right now?

Councillor Craig Kelley 20:02
I'm talking about being B.

Nancy Glowa 20:03
So yes, in B(1), I would suggest something like city staff did not intentionally request or solicit. And then I would...

Councillor Craig Kelley 20:13
Okay, and then what was the other suggestion?

Nancy Glowa 20:16
Well, there were two other ones. So the next one was in A, in the second line, it shall be unlawful for the city or any city staff to intentionally obtain etc. So I would suggest adding "intentionally" in those two places.

Councillor Craig Kelley 20:36
Okay.

Nancy Glowa 20:37
And then my other suggestion that I made first, in keeping with what the Commissioner said, was the for the committee to consider the possibility of having some sort of exception process since this is an ordinance and can only be deviated from by amending the ordinance and while I fully appreciate the concern that Mayor McGovern indicated through his Chief of Staff's comments that you want it to be a cumbersome process to allow such use. That if the committee and council did feel that it might ever be appropriate for, let's say the police commissioner, to feel the need to approach the council for a particular circumstance that wasn't previously anticipated, that putting in an exception clause that would allow that city department through the manager to approach the council to discuss that possibility might be worth considering.

Councillor Craig Kelley 21:38
Okay, so I would move that we amend this proposal to include the word intentionally in .075(A) after the section says "city staff to" insert the word "intentionally" and then say "obtain, retain and request". So on that motion to we have any discussion? No. Okay. In favor, aye. Okay.

And then the second motion I would suggest was we moved to amend this on B(1) where it says "city staff did not request" to insert "intentionally" between the "did" and the "not" it would now read city staff "did not intentionally..." sorry, "did not intentionally request". I would put in intentionally between the "not" and the "request". So all in favor of that? Aye. Okay.

So I think that the one I'm not ready yet to propose is the waiver. But we can talk about... Any clarifying questions for city staff before we go to public comment.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 22:44
I've already spoken but if Dennis...

Councillor Craig Kelley 22:46
Councillor Carlone

Councillor Dennis Carlone 22:48
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Vice Mayor. So the waiver would be for, for instance, a terrorist might be in the area or missing child, who hasn't been found, for two days? It's that kind of request?

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner 23:05
That exact kind of thing, not where you're, you know, constantly surveilling and tracking movements. But where you have a known suspect or individual, and you're trying to locate that... that identified individual already. Something of that scenario. I hate the jump to the ticking time bomb type scenario, but that is the easiest one.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 23:25
The question then is... that means we have the system. We're just turning it on. Is that correct?

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner 23:37
Not necessarily. It means that we could ask to borrow the technology at that time or use it. Obviously another agency could come in and use the technology and not be encumbered by the surveillance ordinance or the facial recognition ban. But the idea is that if you can envision a scenario where you may benefit from using it then a complete and total ban might not be the remedy. I'm in favor of banning the general use of the technology. But like I said, if you can envision even a scenario where it could be helpful, then that might not be the... the total ban might not be the exact remedy, a ban with very limited exceptions, maybe a better remedy.

Nancy Glowa 24:27
Mr. Chair, if I could just add to that, I mean, the other possibility would be to have an exception for exigent circumstances that would could require subsequent reporting to the council if that were done. So these are just possibilities to allow for a little flexibility if circumstances ever warranted it, but again, just for the committee's consideration,

Councillor Dennis Carlone 24:49
So if I may, Mr. Chair in discussions, either you could be specific; if it's a lost child or indirect... if it's some occurrence that might be planned. But it would be clear, you would come back and say this has been solved. We're no longer doing this and no other information is kept.

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner 25:13
It should be very limited set of circumstances that would allow for an exception to take place. So limited, it should be so limited that it would only occur. And, you know, that once in a lifetime type of event, not something that could be routinely used over and over again as a way to get around the, the ban or the ordinance.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 25:37
All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 25:41
Yeah, yes through you. Well, doesn't the existing surveillance technology ordinance have an exception for exigent circumstances where you come to the council essentially, and, and can use a surveillance technology for exactly the kind of limited use scenarios you're describing.

Nancy Glowa 26:05
Through you, Mr. Chair. This proposed amendment says notwithstanding any other provision of the surveillance ordinance. That would knock out the exigent circumstance situation. So the answer is no, you couldn't do it under the rest of the provisions of the ordinance.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 26:25
So if we were to follow your suggestion, where we created an exception... would simply striking the notwithstanding any other provision clause in that sentence, be sufficient to allow for these exigent circumstance exceptions but also to have a ban in the ordinance so that it's clear that we really don't want face surveillance used, but the exigent circumstances apply.

Nancy Glowa 27:00
Through you Mr. Chair. I think that's an excellent suggestion. I would just want to be able to read it through carefully to make sure that that made sense, but it sounds like it makes sense.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 27:10
And may I ask this gentleman here, if that is something that...

Emiliano Falcon 27:15
I would have to study how that would work with the rest of the ordinance.

Councillor Craig Kelley 27:24
So if we were not to waive this... and I'm not saying I'm supporting, waving it, but if we were not to waive it, and there was a crime that happened, and the person is caught on videotape from the store or whatever, and Cambridge Police Department, as part of its investigation, says, well, we could figure out who this person is, if we were able to access some facial surveillance technology and you work to do that. Then you identify the person, then the fact that you did something that we had a law against doing, does that throw that evidence out and then kill the case?

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner 28:17
To you Mr. Chair. That's a legal determination that the court would have to decide in that case.

Nancy Glowa 28:27
Mr. Chair, through you I would add, that is a criminal question. And it would have to be something that people who practice criminal law could advise better on, but I think that's a possibility.

Councillor Craig Kelley 28:42
Okay, yeah. Madam Vice Mayor?

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 28:43
Is there a difference between facial recognition technology and facial surveillance technology? Because to me, what you're describing is we have a picture, we weren't necessarily... we weren't surveilling because this is essentially... you're describing a private camera like in a store, right?

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner 28:59
Correct.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 28:59
So we have those cameras all over the place. Every convenience store has cameras, and they have pictures of people. And then we post those pictures on social media and say this guy just committed an armed robbery. Anybody know him right? That's it. I mean, I'm confused now.

Councillor Craig Kelley 29:14
So maybe Commissioner, you could explain how you might think, are using surveillance techniques such as the cameras at the 7-11, in conjunction with facial recognition software, could be a tool that would be utilized by government.

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner 29:34
So the more likely scenario that I envisioned is that you know that Branville Bard is intent on doing a large number of people harm, but you don't know where Branville Bard is. You have, you know, a photo image of me that you could apply to a database or two active cameras and perhaps pinpoint my location and therebyn, you know, stop me from bringing harm to a large number of folks. Or a mass casualty incident has occurred, you identify this guy's image is the perpetrator. And now you want to also apply that image of me to a database to look backwards to see who, who I am. If that makes sense.

Councillor Craig Kelley 30:24
That makes sense. I've got actually some really interesting, I think questions about how Facebook and whatnot fit into this. But if there are no more clarifying questions for staff, we can move to public comment. And we've got three people signed up. I think we have plenty of time. So you'll have five minutes, you do not need to use those five minutes. The first person up is Christopher Lucy, go up to the podium. Please make sure the light is on, introduce yourself and where you live, and then you get to speak and I'll do something dramatic to indicate when your time is up.

Christopher Lucy, 107 South Street, Boston 31:04
Okay, there we go. I appreciate the ability to speak to the assembled group today. And my name is Christopher Lucy. I'm not a Cambridge resident. I live in Boston. But I want to applaud the City of Cambridge for having taken a bold step to even consider the idea of surveillance oversight. And this, this is something that most of the development is done in cities like Cambridge. So you're making a strong grassroots statement. And I appreciate that. And I'm sure that we are all aware, we live in a stormy tempestuous world, and that there will be doubts and questions along the way, but I strongly support the initiative to pursue that goal. And I can say in principle, I support this amendment but if there are details that need to be worked out, I'm sure that the city and its representatives are sufficient to be able to handle those details in the best interest of the public and on balance I think this is the right direction for you to head. Thank you.

Councillor Craig Kelley 32:07
Thank you very much the next up is Susan Ringler followed by Saul Taunenbaum.

Susan Ringler, 82 Kinnard Street 32:15
Good afternoon, thank you for all of your time on this snowy day on this important matter. I am generally in favor of the ban on facial recognition technology. I draw to your attention and will leave for the public record a New York Times article just this morning on the front page of facial recognition being used against Uighurs in China and articles being... scientific money being given by institutes in Germany. This is really being... there's really bad stuff happening all over the world and I... we really need to come down on this quickly. Although I am in general in favor I am very concerned that we add the word retain to be as well as "a"... it is unbelievably important that we not retain this data. The way you make a database is by retaining information. No, no, no, do not, do not get Cambridge involved in the retention of facial recognition data absolutely not. I mean it is critical, critical critical. I also... These exceptions about using. What if somebody says, "Oh, I'm not using it, I'm just going to keep it in case it becomes important later." No, we do not want to go down that road at all. We have to be really, really careful. I'm also very much against any exceptions. We have lots of surveillance technology, which is not facial recognition. There's lots of ways of using it. We don't want to go down the facial recognition road. Also just for your information. I just returned from a trip to Europe. I go to Europe frequently and on arriving back in the US, guess what they do? They do facial recognition on every single person. So I am already in the national databases and what if the national database just became available to Cambridge without you requesting it? This is absolutely not where we want to go. The retention and the use have to be banned, it has absolutely got to be banned. Also it is really, really important to recognize that women of color are absolutely not treated properly by this technology. Men of color. It is absolutely not. This technology is... we've got to keep away from it. I'm sorry, but it's really, really important. So no exceptions for the police. Be very careful about adding the word retain everywhere where it is appropriate. We really need to protect ourselves and everybody and this red herring about a child. We shouldn't be doing facial recognition on any child. I'm sorry, but I'm absolutely opposed 1,000%. Leave children out of this. Let them be children. Thank you very much for your time.

Councillor Craig Kelley 34:47
Thank you very much. Next up is Saul Tannenbaum.

Saul Tannenbaum, Cottage Street 34:55
Thank you, Councillor . Thank you Councillors for being here and city staff. I'm against the use of facial recognition technology in virtually every circumstance. I came into this room with a theoretical belief that there could be exigent circumstances. But as I've listened to the discussion, every example that has been given has been bad. Just terrible. Lost children? Do even know if facial recognition technology works on children. You know, as the previous speaker said, there are demographic groups who are excluded. I mean, there's probably no database of children. So forget that as an example. Terrorists? That sounds like the exigent circumstances for torture. And they're the same sort of ticking time bomb things that generally rational people agree aren't a good excuse for torture. Why should that be a good excuse for using facial technology? We've had one example of that in the Tsarnaev brothers, people who were recognized by the community instantly and actually should have been recognized by FBI agents. That didn't work very well. Why would we, you know, why would we even think that we should make an exception there for facial recognition technology without any indication that it would work? And lastly, I really doubt the Commissioner meant it this way, but that example of Rambo Bard, who I'd like to meet by the way, that we have live cameras connected so that we could do real time facial recognition, you know, for some suspect.

There is supposition after a supposition there. And I certainly don't want to be living in a city where we could flip a switch and start doing real time facial recognition, you know, on cameras because that is the dystopia of China. So I agree with the mayor's comments through his chief of staff. If there is an exception process, it should be really, really hard. And I would expect the council in those circumstances to be adversarial to the request and not simply get scared by, you know, Rambo Bard who I'm sure is a very dangerous person. But our rights are important too. Thank you.

Councillor Craig Kelley 37:42
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who has not spoken who would like to speak? Seeing none, I would move to close public comment. Okay, I guess we're back. "Retain". One of the public commenters talked about the need to put retain in the legislation. It is in Section A. The public comment is closed, thank you very much.

Notwithstanding any other [sic] will be unlawful for any or... for the city staff to obtain, request, access or use. And that's in A and then in B we have city staffs inadvertent or an unintentional access of or use of any information from facial recognition technology shall not be a violation of the section provided that... It goes on. So we can certainly put retain in to that if the body wants that. So I'll move to put...

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 38:47
Excuse me, we should probably make it retention. Yeah, I mean, if you're putting it in that first sentence then access...

Councillor Craig Kelley 38:56
Okay? So in between the term or word "receipt" and "access" I'll move that we've put the word "retention", comma "access of"... "retention of" the word. And the solicitor has a comment.

Nancy Glowa 39:15
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to note that the city is still subject to the provisions of the public records laws. So, although we would certainly be able to not disclose any information that the city received or retained as we are required to under the public records law, because of the privacy exemption, if state law says we have to retain something once the city's in receipt of it, I think that that would trump the provisions of a local ordinance. So I am...

I can certainly assure the council that the city would do everything I could to not release any such information. I just wanted to note for your information, that we are subject to the requirements of the public records law.

Councillor Craig Kelley 39:59
Thank you. But my understanding is we don't have to call that out. We can still include the word "retention of" realizing that state law trumps local anytime that there's a conflict. Okay, super. So, with that being said, I think we're on the waiver part, and honestly, I don't like it. I've been probably reading too much about artificial... Councillor Siddiqui?

Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui 40:25
I think... I agree with you. And I agree with the mayor's comments on this. And I respectively see the point of having those circumstances and at the same time, the harm of it is really compelling. And given that we don't... we don't own any technology in the first place. That's an important point, we don't have it and so since we don't have it.

I think...

Yeah, I think I'm having a hard time with the waiver. So I'm open to what other of my colleagues say and the ACLU as well, but yeah, I'm torn.

Councillor Craig Kelley 41:15
Councillor Carlone.

Councillor Dennis Carlone 41:18
Well, I've been to China and I was a little stunned by the passiveness of the people. And part of it isn't even the software. At every block and park in Beijing are three policemen, not one, not two, but three, at least in the downtown area. So that's.... Everybody behaved that I could see. I read... I heard about an event the week before, but it's very minor. So it's a completely different society. The only reason why I think a waiver makes sense as we don't know. We don't know the circumstances and I think that's what they're asking for. I don't want surveillance but in the event of a catastrophe, or something we don't even know, the possibilities there. And the council will vote on it.

I... Excuse me, I assume would be a closed door event to talk about whatever the circumstance might be. If it's super important. So I think the option is fine. It depends on who is on the council and their beliefs. But I don't think anybody in this room is for surveillance beyond the unthinkable. That's my position.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 42:40
Councillor Kelley?

Councillor Craig Kelley 42:42
Vice Mayor.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 42:47
This is only Public Safety Committee, right. So this... Whatever we refer out of this goes to Ordinance next?

Councillor Craig Kelley 42:54
Now we could pass it at the Council without an Ordinance Committee meeting.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 42:54
Oh, we could?

Yes, okay. The Clerk is nodding. Okay, I was thinking would have to go to... So, we could, I think I would be in favor of sending it as is to the Council with... If either the City Solicitor or the Police Commissioner wants to contribute something to accompany it, so that when the full Council discusses it, they have this context. But I feel like there's not really a compelling reason for us as a Public Safety Committee to take that out because it does sort of leave a big loophole that I understand is meant to be a small loophole, but nonetheless, it is a loophole. So I would, I would make a motion to just refer this to the Council with those comments and let whoever is on the council at that point. Make the call.

Councillor Craig Kelley 43:53
Okay, so before we do that, just to make sure that we've done it. I thought it called for a vote on the "retention of" in paragraph B section 1: "city staff did not request a solicit the receipt, access of". And put in between "receipt" and "access" the words "retention of" so on that... Councillor Carlone? Okay, so on that motion everyone in favor Aye? Opposed? Okay. So now that's been amended. Other comments on the exemptions? Emiliano?

Emiliano Falcon 44:32
Well, I would say that we believe that the technology is not ready for prime time. And maybe starting putting exceptions and carving things out local of laws, regulations... And regulations should happen at the state or federal level. That's why we believe that in the cities it has to be banned until at the state level and the federal level, maybe, this technology is regulated. So that's why we're thinking...

Councillor Craig Kelley 45:00
Okay, I have a question for you Emiliano. Which is how under this, how would someone, whether it's a police department or community development or whatever, looking through Facebook, which has a facial recognition aspect, how would that impact their ability to either do their work or inadvertently break the law?

Emiliano Falcon 45:25
Thank you for the chair. I cannot answer the question I would have to see how in that case Facebook is used because Facebook doesn't always use face recognition technology. So that depend on how the social network was used in the particular case. There are ways that I can think of the police department can still use Facebook without using facial recognition technology. For sure.

Councillor Craig Kelley 45:59
Madam Solicitor.

Nancy Glowa 46:01
Thank you, Mr. Chair, you are sort of touching on an issue that came to us as well, which is under the ordinance. Currently, cameras and buildings are exempt, for example. It's not really clear from this definition, what... Well, if it's an automated or semi-automated processes, does that includes still camera photos, and what does it mean to capture information? So, to the extent that this may be different from some of the other provisions of the ordinance that we had understood, were agreeable to the ACLU. It might be helpful if we could talk a little bit offline before it comes to the council just to see if a little bit clearer definition would be helpful because I think that creates a little bit of a gray area and also, as you said about Facebook. You know, there could be some parameters around certain technologies that are in place, out there and used. Maybe that would be helpful for everyone to clarify.

Councillor Craig Kelley 47:07
Emiliano

Emiliano Falcon 47:09
Through the Chair, I would say that there's a difference between the software and the camera. So this is a software, this is the automated or semi-automated process. It's the software that is... that can be... that's one of the highest threats of this technology. That is that these software can be embedded into any camera. So the ban is directed to the use of that software and information that can be derived from a software of the like. Right? So the cameras can still be there. The only thing is that we... the city will be prevented from using the footage of this cameras and run all those... all the footage through the technology, through the software. So that's what the definition is... is means, right? It's the software. That the use of the technology itself.

Councillor Craig Kelley 48:11
So let me interject. So Facebook has that software. So say I'm Community Development and I want to figure out how my last outreach went for some retail party or something. What I read this to clearly say is if I am the person at CDD, doing the social media stuff, and I see that Craig Kelly or some Councillor Devereaux or whoever was at that party, because the software that Facebook has is providing that information, then I'm breaking the law. I absolutely am with you on the surveillance part of things and I don't like that and I don't like the idea of waving it. But on the other hand, some of this stuff is so embedded in what we do in just a daily basis, we want to make sure we're not setting up a situation where the well meaning administrator says, "Oh, yeah, that's who was there. Let's send them a note about the next meeting" or something like that.

Emiliano Falcon 49:17
Thank you. And I think that in that case, it would depend if the facial recognition software of Facebook identified you or whoever was in the picture, because sometimes people just tag each other and doesn't use facial recognition technology. So how Facebook facial recognition technology works that one has to kind of... I don't know if... I'm not sure if it's like an opt in or an opt out if Facebook asks you if you want Facebook to use facial recognition technology over your face. So I would say that in that case, if Facebook use facial recognition technology, and then the City use Facebook. And in that case Facebook use facial recognition technology then yes, the city will be prevented from using Facebook in that particular case. Of course then you have the unintentional and inadvertent received so that might provide a way out. It's hard to say, but we're happy to work. if you want to come up with some language that clarifies this.

Councillor Craig Kelley 50:28
I may be making a mountain out of a molehill here, but when I go on Facebook it identifies people for me without my asking. And I suspect that's the same case with a lot of people.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 50:43
Yeah, it will suggest you might want to tag somebody. It recognizes the face and says is this Craig? want to tag him? And then therefore everybody knows that Craig attended that party. Yeah.

Emiliano Falcon 50:56
Yes, but I think that you have to consent into that. If I'm... No?

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 51:02
You can have settings.

Emiliano Falcon 51:03
I don't have Facebook, so...

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 51:06
Yeah, I mean, we're allowing ourselves to be surveilled all the time by... Yeah, no, Facebook has settings that you can say anyone can tag you or they have to request permission first. It's a good thing to have. There is also... I wanted to also ask... There are all these doorbells that Amazon sends. The Amazon ring doorbell that takes an image of you and like sends a picture to Craig's cell phone that says, hey, look, Jan is ringing your doorbell you're not home. But now you know, Jan was on your door. And I think those pictures get like, kept by Amazon and probably used for all kinds of things we don't know about. But this ordinance only, like our other one, only protects people against the city using this technology. So all of us are being surveilled voluntarily and involuntarily. It seems like all the time.

Councillor Craig Kelley 51:58
But in your case Which I think is a really good one, when we think about package stuff, so someone walks up to a doorbell or sorry, walks up to a porch, grabs a handful of packages and then leaves. But they are recorded by the ring or some other type of surveillance device. What this ordinance is saying and what I support is, we can look at the... city staff or whoever can look at the pictures and say, do we recognize this person? Does anyone recognize this person? And the answer is no. But what we couldn't do is we couldn't post it on Facebook and see if Facebook suggests the tag for that person because that would be using some sort of facial recognition software, nor could we give it to whoever say the UAC people and have them run it through a database.

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner 52:56
Chair. I think you are conflating issues. We could put that picture on social media and say, does anybody recognize this guy? And that will be completely okay. We're not asking for...

Councillor Craig Kelley 53:07
That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying you put it on Facebook and Facebook says, this person might be such and such who's been tagged elsewhere. I understand you can ask other people if the person is known. But if you put it up on Facebook, and it provides a possible tag, then that's facial recognition software.

Branville Bard, Police Commissioner 53:26
I don't know what those algorithms are and how that comes into play. But I mean, I hate to even keep bringing up the point or the argument because then it makes it feel like that I'm against banning facial recognition software and technology. And I'm completely not against banning it. I think that public safety for police. We prevent crime and protect civil rights and when those two collide, then protecting the civil rights has to carry the day. All technology can be leveraged and abused. Rarely does. The answer exist in... You know, the polar opposites. It is always, mostly always, somewhere in the middle. Here, I think the remedy lies closer to the total ban. But if you can envision a scenario where the technology could be helpful, then I think it's unreasonable to hamstring yourself and to never being able to use that technology. And that's all.

Nancy Glowa 54:28
If I could just add on to that, I mean, this this conversation has raised two concerns. So could there be a way of refining the definition even more to somehow differentiate between using technologies that other entities are already using like Facebook, or software that the city staff is intentionally using? So I don't know if that's a possibility, but that's one thought I have but the other thing I wanted to say is that, as the council knows the council is very interested in having the city try to enforce the short term rental ordinance. And it's very difficult to enforce ordinances like that, where you're talking about how people are, you know, using their property and in order to enforce ordinances like that ordinance and many other ordinances or laws. The city often relies upon information provided by third parties. And in one of the few cases where the city was successfully able to go after violations of that ordinance. It was because of door bell camera recognition images that were provided to city staff. That city staff was able to use in dealing with the other owners or residents of the property in order to and to leverage that information. So that raises the question if a complainant, a person who's complaining about a violation of some law, brings such an image to the city, would this mean that we would not be able to use that? Because in that situation, for example, in that... doesn't... it that's not completely infrequent that that's how we would get word of things like that. Is that what's intended here because that would be helpful to know and to make sure that the city is doing that deliberately.

Councillor Craig Kelley 56:30
So since you brought up short term rentals, we are we are renting a place in Ripton, Vermont, which has about 1500 people in it. And they require people to place their Airbnb registration number on the site. Cambridge for reasons I cannot explain, does not and that would be one way of addressing that concern. Your larger concern though, I think is if someone comes to the police department, and says, this person took the packages off my porch and I know who this person is because I have them photographed on my ring doorbell. And I ran it through Facebook or some other commercially available database that does facial recognition software, then what this would be saying is the police department cannot act on that information. We can't use it. We can't retain it. We can't share it. We can't do anything on it.

Nancy Glowa 57:31
Mr. Chair, through you. It suggests that to me, so if that's not what's intended, then it could benefit from some clarification and if it is what's intended, then that could have an impact on other enforcement activities of the city and various departments.

Councillor Craig Kelley 57:48
Right for from my point of view, it is what is intended and I would be willing to pay that cost as a society. Vice Mayor?

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 57:57
Yeah, and given the relatively high false ID thing, I don't really want to enable a whole bunch of amateur detectives by saying, hey, great, I got this fancy doorbell and I got Facebook and I just solved the crime for you. You know, go find this guy and his house. I don't. You know, the other thing about Facebook tagging, though, I believe when you use like, as opposed to a personal account a page like Cambridge police or even some of the candidate pages, for instance, I don't think the tagging works the same way because you aren't friends with somebody you have simply like to page. So in the example that Craig gave about the police department being able to... you wouldn't have that unless, I think it was on a friend. Not that it really matters, but I think we're getting into the nuances of Facebook. A huge rabbit hole.

Councillor Craig Kelley 58:55
If we are talking about surveillance. Yes.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 58:57
Yeah. But it is different. There is a different level. For... of privacy, if you can even call it that on Facebook for pages accounts that are sort of the city versus you Craig as a person.

Councillor Craig Kelley 59:13
And we have your motion on the table, which at some point we have to vote on. But I think that illustrates the larger point of... there's a whole bunch of stuff out here that we don't know exists or don't understand how it exists, and it's going to become more stuff in the future rather than less stuff. And I, you know, I'd rather frankly, have the council come back at some point in life and amend the ordinance based on what happens rather than have an exemption now that the council would vote on. So if no one else has comments. The Vice Mayor has a motion on the floor to send this to the City Council. I guess with no recommendation, as we have amended it, and we have only amended it with, I think, five separate words. There's no waiver at this point in what's on the table.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:00:07
Why wouldn't we give it a recommendation?

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:00:09
We could. I'm begging that question.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:00:12
Seems like we are pretty favorable.

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:00:14
Okay. So to send this to the Council with a favorable recommendation. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. This can pass whenever the... Actually, it could be one of our last votes Vice Mayor. My understanding is this can come to the council and be ordained because it's not a zoning provision by a five vote majority on the night that it comes to the council, is that correct? Okay, so 10 days, so maybe we can't make that deadline, but we shall see. Okay, super. Yes, Madam Chair... Madam Solicitor. Whoever you are.

Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 1:00:58
Thank you, Mr. Chari. I just... since this is going to the council, as amended. I just wanted to raise two other suggestions for consideration. Just while the committee is still here. Would it be helpful in the definition where it says facial recognition technology means an automated or semi-automatic... semi-automated process? Would it be helpful to say there electronic software or other process to indicate that these are electronic software type programs? That's just one thought. And certainly I can, you know, mention these if and when it comes to the council. But the other thing about the Facebook conversation, would it be helpful to consider at the end of the sentence where it says, you know: "identifying or capturing information about an individual based on the physical characteristics" to add "without that individuals consent". I don't use Facebook either but my understanding is that you agree to Facebook, making your image available for people to tag if you're friends with those people and. So that it's a consensual process by which that information is available. If that's not helpful, feel free to disregard. I just wanted to throw it out there. Thank you.

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:02:18
Comments? Emiliano?

Emiliano Falcon 1:02:21
Yes, I am not sure about the consent. Because most of these systems don't use the consent of the people's faces, like the RMV, for example, you never consent to a use by the RMV of the driver's licenses by law enforcement, for example. And Facebook, I'm not sure how that works either. And a lot of other programs don't require consent actually. That's one of the problems.

And as to their software app, I think that it's automated or semi-automated. It's clear that it's a software. I don't if you want to include the word "software", it might confuse? I don't know, I think that automated it, it's clear or semi-automated that it involves computer programs and software. So...

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:03:18
Comments? No. Well,

Will Durbin, Chief of Staff to Mayor McGovern 1:03:22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just really quickly I wanted to talk about the timeline for the council because the Mayor will be submitting, for next week, a policy order asking that the 23rd be cancelled as a City Council meeting. Which will remove that date as a possible ordination date, but that I believe is the second day of Hanukkah. And we will be submitting a proposal or asking the council to cancel that date. Keep the 30th, the 9th and the 16th.

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:03:53
The 30th might be a tough one. But I mean, there's no particularly rushed to ordain this. It doesn't have a calendar. Just be kind of fun from my perspective. It may be from Mark and Jan's as well. But I don't see any need to rush it if the calendar doesn't otherwise work for it.

Vice Mayor Jan Devereux 1:04:10
Does it just automatically get carried over? Because it was... I don't know. I mean, I don't see why we wouldn't try to ordain it if we could...

Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 1:04:25
Yeah, so there's so this is not a zoning ordinance. So it doesn't have the same deadlines that a zoning ordinance would have. My understanding is that if you move it out of committee today and it came before the council, ideally on the 9th, but more than likely, probably on the 16th. And then 10 days after whatever date it was before the council, it can be ordained whether it's in this session or the next.

Councillor Craig Kelley 1:04:52
Okay, any other questions or comments? Thank you all for your time. And I imagine we'll see some of you back here shortly.

1. That the Amendment to Chapter 2.128 Surveillance Ordinance Technology be forwarded to the Public Safety Committee for a hearing.
RESULT: REFERRED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH AMENDMENTS AND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION Next: 12/9/2019 5:30pm

2. A communication was received from Emilian Falcon of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts regarding the Face Surveillance Ban
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE

The documents received by the committee may be viewed here:
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2565

For the Committee,
Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair
Public Safety Committee

Amended Order     Dec 9, 2019
MAYOR MCGOVERN
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
COUNCILLOR SIDDIQUI
WHEREAS: The City Council passed Chapter 2.128 Surveillance Technology Ordinance on Dec 10, 2018, which imposed a requirement that the City Manager seek approval from the City Council prior to acquiring or using certain surveillance technology, including Biometric Surveillance Technology and facial recognition software and databases; and
WHEREAS: Notwithstanding this existing check on the City’s authority to acquire and use face recognition technology or data derived thereof, the potential threats to residents’ civil rights and civil liberties that are unique to face recognition technology warrant its outright ban; and
WHEREAS: Facial recognition software can discriminate based on classes like race and gender; a 2018 report out of the MIT Media Lab and Microsoft “Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification” found that while the “maximum error rate for lighter-skinned makes is 0.8%” in commercial gender classification systems, “darker skinned females are the most misclassified group (with error rates up to 34.7%);” and
WHEREAS: The use of face recognition technology can have a chilling effect on the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech, with the technology being used in China to target ethnic minorities, and in the United States, it was used by police agencies in Baltimore, Maryland, to target activists in the aftermath of Freddie Gray’s death; and
WHEREAS: State Representative Dave Rogers (whose district includes parts of Cambridge) has filed legislation that would impose a moratorium on face recognition technology, and as recently as Thurs, July 25, 2019, Representative Ayanna Pressley introduced a bill before Congress that would:

1. Prohibit the use of biometric recognition technology in public and assisted housing units funded under HUD; and

2. Require HUD to submit a report to Congress that provides analysis on any known use of facial recognition technologies in public housing units; the impact of emerging technologies on tenants; the purpose of installing the technologies in the units; demographic information of impacted tenants, and; the impact of emerging technologies on vulnerable communities in public housing, including tenant privacy, civil rights and fair housing includes HUD federally assisted rental dwelling units;

WHEREAS: Three cities have already banned the use of facial recognition technology by municipal authorities, including San Francisco, Oakland (CA), and next door in Somerville; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the attached amendment to Chapter 2.128 Surveillance Ordinance Technology be forwarded to the Public Safety Committee for a hearing as soon as possible.

Committee Report #5
The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning; Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:00pm in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the final Envision Report.

Present at the hearing were Councillor Zondervan, Co-Chair of the Committee; Councillor Siddiqui; Mayor McGovern; Vice Mayor Devereux; Iram Farooq, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Melissa Peters, Director of Community Planning; Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Environment and Transportation Planning; Lisa Hemmerle, Economic Development Director; Drew Kane, Land Use Planner, Community Development Department (CDD); and Paula M. Crane, Deputy City Clerk.

Also present were James Zall, Marilee Meyer, Phil Wellons and John Pitkin.

Councillor Zondervan convened the hearing and read the Call of the Meeting. He noted that the meeting is being televised and recorded.

Ms. Peters stated that the PowerPoint presentation (ATTACHMENT A) will focus on implementation and the monitoring of the Envision progress to remain on-target. She gave an overview of a PowerPoint presentation regarding the broad framework and high-level goals and how progress will be tracked. She said that there are approximately six indicators for each planning topic to get a high-level assessment of the City’s performance towards achieving goals.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked if the 176 actions include the 160 existing and ongoing actions. Ms. Peters responded that the total is 336 actions. She noted that 75 actions will be completed in the near term and 44 actions were identified as high priority. She said that the plan is to be transparent on the progress of these actions. She said that they have performance indicators that will help to monitor the progress of the actions. She noted that there will be a website that will be a valuable communication tool for the public.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked what is considered near term? Ms. Peters responded that near term is within the next 5 years, medium term is 5-10 years and long term is 10 plus years. Ms. Peters noted that CDD will update targets as the City moves ahead.

Mayor McGovern said that one concern is how all the recommendations tie together. He asked how the City is planning to bring some things together. Melissa said that there are conflicts that must be teased out at the action level. She said that when you get down to the finite details, that is where the rubber meets the road. Having tradeoff and community conversations will be essential. She said that it is hard to solve that in a high level, broad document. When talking about a housing goal, Mayor McGovern said that it is important to understand that if you do one thing it might not jive with other priorities. He said transparency is a must.

Councillor Siddiqui said that another issue is that quite a few of the goals require a Home Rule Petition. She said that progress has been slowed due to misunderstanding around this topic. She said that the reality is that so much requires Home Rule. She questioned the things that do not require a Home Rule Petition that will protect tenants. She said that there must be more conversation about some of the resources that are associated with these goals.

Councillor Zondervan said that the sustainability dashboard is very helpful. He asked if there will be a similar dashboard for all the areas in the Envision Report. Ms. Peters responded in the affirmative. Councillor Zondervan said that the actions are overwhelming and often we jump to do 50 things, but more time should be spent on the goals and resources to ensure that we are doing the right things to get there.

There was no public comment.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that there are specific goals for housing and when she looks at economy, she is not sure that she sees a ratio of how many jobs to housing units there are. She said that this comes up on a regular basis. She said that she does not understand what we are aiming at in terms of the appropriate ratio of housing to jobs. She said that layered onto that, as we add more people, we are also creating new needs for open space. She said that she is not seeing actual calculations of open space per capita. She questioned how it functions. Ms. Farooq said that tension between some of the goals and the targets are inherent in planning. She said that there are not easy solutions. She said that sometimes we can find synergy to allow us to meet the highest number of objectives and minimize the amount of compromises that must be made. She said that one thing that is valuable about Envision is that it gives us a way to look at things on a citywide basis. She said that the value of having the citywide indicator tracking will be beneficial. She said that the city overall must move to targets.

Vice Mayor Devereux said with the last major planning effort at the Alewife area, the residential development far exceeded what was anticipated. She said that there was not a balance of commercial projects. Ms. Farooq said that that was the intention of the last plan. She explained that the Alewife area was all industrial and commercial and the focus was to create incentives to get residential into the area. She said that the idea was to create a district that is more of a mixed-use area. She said that the pace was faster than anticipated which is what happens when the market is hot. She said that from a land use perspective, that area has a healthier mix of uses than before the City did the Concord Alewife Planning Study. Vice Mayor Devereux said that there are gaps in the Alewife area that need to be filled.

Councillor Zondervan said that he agrees with his colleagues in terms of evaluating the actions individually against the goals and being as clear as possible what these actions will impact. He said that for that reason, it is important that the goals are capturing what we want to be doing. He asked about the process for refining the goals. He said that he feels that there is more work to be done to ensure that the community and the City Council agree on the goals to be pursued. He said that it is important to spend time on the goals and make sure that they are what we want as a community. He suggested putting all the goals together at the beginning. He stated that it is useful to have the overall sense of the goals as a community and then move to the subsections of the goals. He said that this would improve the report. He said that we must think about a process to go through the goals to refine them, if necessary.

Councillor Zondervan said that an accounting of resources is not present in the report. He said that having an accounting of the resources and the goals is very important. He said that the closest the city has come is with the non-profit coalition so more work like that would allow for a better understanding and evaluation. He suggested a catalog of resources. Ms. Farooq responded that we should let the Envision Report be a report of the community process and create a new working document as a follow-up action. She said that the City Council could adopt an updated version of the goals. She said that she suspects that the actions will be similar.

She agrees that the resource piece is a logical next step and they can start this work. Councillor Zondervan said that it would be good to lift the goals out of the report and start a process to evaluate those goals and to catalogue resources that would help achieve the goals.

Vice Mayor Devereux agreed that this is a good approach. She asked if there are population projections. She said that one goal is to increase the percentage of households with children under the age of 18. Ms. Peters explained that projections were done under current zoning as to what development would look like as well as under specific zoning ideas. This was used as a basis in setting the housing target goal. She said that under current zoning we would see an additional 10,000-11,000 new housing units. The community recommendation is more housing.

Vice Mayor Devereux said that she does remember looking at charts. She explained that she is trying to understand if that is anywhere in the plan or is it still a moving target. She said that she is trying to get a handle on what the growth looks like in terms of people. Ms. Peters said that when they looked at projections, they looked at two specific zoning ideas, superinclusionary and an incentive for net zero construction. At the time, the feedback received was that additional community engagement was needed before a recommendation could be made about those specific ideas. She said that the City agreed but did not want to hold off on publishing the plan.

Ms. Farooq added that the reason they studied superinclusionary and net zero construction is because they would result in the highest increase in population density.

Councillor Zondervan asked if there should be a population goal or should it be said that there are other community goals that may result in a higher population or not. It is important to be clear.

Councillor Siddiqui asked when the result of the Incentive Zoning Study will be released. Ms. Farooq said that they are working on finalizing those currently and hope to have them before the end of the year.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that the prior evening there was a hearing about the Urban Forest Master Plan study. She said that there is also the Climate Resiliency Task Force. She asked how many more meetings are anticipated. Ms. Farooq said that they hoped to wrap up the process in January but as they are trying to find the priorities, more time is needed. She said that the plan is to wrap up in March.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the 2020 bike plan. Ms. Rasmussen said that it is underway. She said that community engagement is taking some time as well as the feasibility study. She said that until the community process is further along, the studies cannot be completed. She said that it is a process that will take about 1.5 years.

Councillor Zondervan said that he looked at the climate goals and he likes the adjustments that were made. He said that he still feels that there are opportunities to go further. In terms of emission profile, we must look at energy consumption and carbon absorption. He said that while the City cannot do a lot of that work, we can affect a lot of it through our actions. He said that one example is the stormwater management work that the City does that has an impact on seagrass in the Boston Harbor, which absorbs a lot of carbon. He said that the climate change preparedness goal was adjusted, and he likes that it is focused on vulnerable populations. He said that it is focused only on protection and does not talk about adaptation. He said that adapting is changing some of the things that we are doing. He said that it may be useful to reconsider the language to see where it can be adjusted. He stated that he likes environmental justice being called out as a separate goal. He said that something that is missing is changing how the economy works so it is more equitable and addressing the climate crisis. He said that we must prepare young people for training in forestry, ecology, agriculture and food production. This can lead to greater equity in the economy.

Councillor Zondervan made the following motion:
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide a summary report of the Envision goals for consideration by the City Council; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to initiate a process to catalogue the City’s community-wide resources that can be leveraged to achieve our Envision goals.

The motion passed.

Vice Mayor Devereux asked about the mechanism for talking more about Envision Alewife. She asked if there will be a printed version. Ms. Farooq responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Devereux said that Alewife needs a discussion. Ms. Farooq said that she would be happy to prepare a presentation on Envision Alewife.

Councillor Siddiqui said that it is noted that many recommendations require additional study and public engagement. She asked if there is a way to determine which things will need study prior to action. She said that it seems that there is a study for almost everything. She asked how many of the recommendation require studies as it would helpful to know.

Vice Mayor Devereux noted that when looking at the new actions versus ongoing actions, numerically there are more new actions in climate and mobility than in housing, economy, and community wellbeing. She said that this is interesting. Ms. Farooq said that it may be an indicator of where there are traditional programs or policies that are already in place. Those things don’t show up as new actions and there is not a lot that is completely new that needs to be done. She said that in areas such as climate, we are continuing to learn more. She said that there are certain recommendations that might show up as one recommendation, but they would be a big analysis that might sprout in the next 2-3 years that will bring about another whole set of actions.

Councillor Zondervan thanked all those present for their attendance.

The hearing adjourned at 4:09pm

For the Committee,
Councillor Quinton Y. Zondervan, Co-Chair
Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chair

Order     Dec 9, 2019
COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide a summary report of the Envision goals for consideration by the City Council; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to initiate a process to catalogue the City’s community-wide resources that can be leveraged to achieve our Envision goals.

AWAITING REPORT LIST
16-26. Report on the possibility of the City Council implementing a zoning change, on the permitting of all new restaurants where a wood-fired oven is used as a significant method of food preparation. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Devereux, Councillor Kelley (O-5) from 4/4/2016

16-42. Report on plans for the former Riverside Community Health Center on Western Avenue, including transfer of ownership of the building to the City and the process for determining future usage. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Vice Mayor McGovern (O-1) from 5/2/2016

16-83. Report on drafting possible legislation and other recommendations for interim actions to identify and address the public health impacts of any commercial wood-fired ovens. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Mayor Simmons (Calendar Item #4) from 10/31/2016

16-101. Report on the potential of building below market rental housing on City-owned parking lots along Bishop Allen Drive. On a communication from Councillor McGovern requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons (O-4) from 12/12/2016

16-108. Report on whether people displaced and qualify for Emergency Status who are using Section 8 in other cities or towns can retain their resident preference for the purpose of Inclusionary Housing. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toomey (O-4) from 12/19/2016

17-22. Report on the potential growth of next-generation wireless technology in the City, to include: the expected footprint of citywide coverage from just one company and what market competition might produce; the integration of public and private infrastructure to support the network; what local standards the City might hope to maintain relative to aesthetics and safety; and how this new technology fits into our Broadband access plans. On a communication from Councillor Kelley requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Cheung, Councillor Devereux, Councillor Kelley (O-14) from 2/27/2017

17-87. Report on a schedule for resubmitting a revised draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that incorporates clearer wording and/or more clearly explains each section in less technical jargon and is more coherent in its entirety, with the goal of seeing such an Ordinance adopted by the end of this City Council term. On a communication from Councillor Kelley and Councillor Devereux requesting that this matter be forwarded to the 2018-2019 Legislative Session.
Councillor Carlone, Councillor Devereux (O-8) from 9/18/2017

18-6. Report on information regarding electronic device usage by City-elected officials.
Councillor Toomey (O-7) from 1/22/2018

18-21. Report on the feasibility of initiating a formal transit study and action plan of the Alewife area in response to unanimous concerns of the Envision Alewife Working Group.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Siddiqui (O-7) from 2/26/2018

18-38. Report on inventory of all City-owned vacant buildings and lots and the City's plans for them, if any.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui (O-2) from 3/26/2018

18-53. Report on an updated schedule for resubmitting a revised draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that incorporates suggestions from the Light Cambridge Committee by June 11, 2018.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone (O-1) from 5/14/2018

18-60. Report on a small business parking pilot that would allow temporary on-street employee parking during typical daytime operating hours.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons (Calendar Item #1) from 5/14/2018

18-66. Report on establishing a Young Adult Civic Unity Committee to be modeled after the Citizen Civic Unity Committee and to recruit applicants from all across the community and across all socio-economic backgrounds.
Councillor Simmons (O-7) from 6/18/2018

18-68. Report on determining the permitting and legality issues of Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing in the City of Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Zondervan (O-11) from 6/18/2018

18-73. Report on establishing and implementing a dynamic new initiative that will seek to place Port residents (ages 18 and over) on paths to jobs with family-sustaining wages.
Councillor Simmons (O-6) from 6/25/2018

18-96. Report on how the City views internet-based platforms as opportunities for outreach and communication and what sort of guidelines have been, or are being, developed to help everyone understand how the City’s various departments do or do not utilize these communication resources and how any communications on these platforms are managed so that the messaging and information is kept up-to-date.
Councillor Kelley (Calendar Item #10) from 9/24/2018

18-108. Report on offering early voting in City Council and School Committee Elections.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui (O-1) from 10/29/2018

18-119. Report on evaluating the existing capacity of fire stations in the Kendall Square area and whether a new fire station is needed, and if so, determining the feasibility of locating a plot of land for this use.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-2) from 11/5/2018

18-129. Report on conducting a comprehensive, independent planning, and parking study of the neighborhood and use of the First Street Garage within 6months.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (Calendar Item #1) from 11/19/2018

19-3. Report on establishing a Central Square Improvement Fund and allocate no less than 25% of funds generated to the arts.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-6) from 1/7/2019

19-5. Report on how to provide public representation to the major project Selection Committees.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone (O-14) from 1/7/2019

19-21. Report on the process for establishing a formal, thorough review of the City’s Affordable Home Ownership programs, incorporating a plan for obtaining and analyzing substantial quantitative data inclusive of all types of units.  See Mgr #15
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-3) from 2/25/2019

19-22. Report on the feasibility of allowing small businesses to host live acoustic music performances without a license, and if feasible, present the City Council with a proposal to allow such performances.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-5) from 2/25/2019

19-25. Report on information that is offered to limited equity condominium owners regarding the ability to recoup extraordinary repair and maintenance costs, the procedure that is in place to inform purchasers of existing or possible construction and maintenance issues that may result in higher-than expected condo fees, and the possibility of allowing roommates to cover unexpected expenses.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Simmons, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-10) from 2/25/2019

19-26. Report on communicating directly with the Volpe Center about the possibility of having their staff help the City set up a Micro-Mobility Pilot program in the Kendall Square area.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-11) from 2/25/2019

19-35. Report on the status of any micro-mobility pilot programs or partnerships in Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley (O-12) from 3/18/2019

19-37. Report on moving a Transit Benefit Ordinance proposal to an action plan.
Vice Mayor Devereux (O-18) from 3/18/2019

19-42. Report on plans this construction season to install sidewalk markings that appropriately indicate what types of mobility devices are allowed on which sidewalks.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone (O-7) from 4/1/2019

19-45. Report on compiling a full accounting of streets, schools, and public buildings that may be named in honor of those who have ties to the American slave trade, and to work towards renaming all of these streets, schools, and buildings.
Councillor Simmons (O-4) from 4/8/2019

19-46. Report on reviewing whether the MBTA is out of compliance with the amended MBTA/BCIL settlement agreement through the delay in completion of the elevator replacement and concurrent hazardous condition of the stairwells related to Central Square.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon (O-9) from 4/8/2019

19-49. Report on recommending restrictions on signage specific to retail establishments that sell e-cigarettes and other vaping devices.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toomey (O-15) from 4/8/2019

19-50. Report on clarifying the policy around future installation of new LED street lights and replacement of failed 4000K LED street lights with warmer alternatives 3000K or less.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (O-17) from 4/8/2019

19-58. Report on working with the Recycling Advisory Committee and other stakeholders to draft an ordinance banning single-use plastic items in Cambridge.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (O-6) from 5/13/2019

19-62. Report on drafting a formal Anti-bias /Cultural Competency Strategic Plan for eventual adoption and implementation.
Councillor Simmons (O-2) from 5/20/2019

19-66. Report on whether it is possible to reduce or eliminate Building Permit Fees for 100% affordable housing development projects, through an exemption or other means and investigate what types of real estate tax abatements are possible for 100% affordable housing moving forward.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Mayor McGovern (O-3) from 6/3/2019

19-73. Report on reviewing safety issues at City buildings and provide the City Council with relevant recommendations designed to maximize the safety of municipal employees and members of the public while ensuring that City buildings and services remain open and accessible to all.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Kelley (O-1) from 6/10/2019

19-74. Report on establishing a working committee to review the monuments, memorials, and markers throughout Cambridge to determine whether any of these commemorate those who were linked to the slave trade or engaged in other similarly shameful acts and to determine which individuals should be newly recognized with a monument, memorial, or marker.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon (O-2) from 6/10/2019

19-75. Report on exploring the feasibility of partnering with a local research institution to conduct a study that determines how many ridehail vehicles are on the roads during both on and off-peak times and their impacts on congestion and safety.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-4) from 6/10/2019

19-76. Report on identifying additional traffic-calming and safety features and to discuss with the Fresh Pond mall owner the potential for creating a formal street connection between Terminal Road and New Street.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone (O-5) from 6/10/2019

19-82. Report on identifying whether a Bluebikes station may be located in the proximity of Rafferty Park or elsewhere in the general vicinity.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan (O-1) from 6/24/2019

19-83. Report on considering the cost and feasibility of improvements to the Danehy Dog Park.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon (O-2) from 6/24/2019

19-84. Report on drafting a zoning amendment that will count a portion of a new or substantially renovated building's rooftop mechanicals (excluding solar installations) toward its allowed height and/or FAR.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-3) from 6/24/2019

19-86. Report on developing a Vacant Storefront Registration Policy.
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan (O-5) from 6/24/2019

19-88. Report on conferring with the MBTA with the view in mind of increasing the bus service along Concord Avenue.
Mayor McGovern, Councillor Mallon (O-7) from 6/24/2019

19-92. Report on coordinating with Somerville in initiating more robust and regional public outreach on the dangers of black swallow-wort and measures that can be taken to eliminate this invasive species.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Siddiqui (O-3) from 7/30/2019

19-93. Report on a plan to restore the fountain dedicated to President John F. Kennedy.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Kelley (O-4) from 7/30/2019

19-96. Report on providing the supporting documentation as it relates to the claim of a decrease in cyclists’ running red lights.
Councillor Kelley (O-9) from 7/30/2019

19-100. Report on the feasibility of implementing an additional regulatory requirement for listing a registration/license number for Short-Term Rentals.
Councillor Kelley, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons (O-19) from 7/30/2019

19-101. Report on collecting data on how many households have taken advantage of Cambridge Energy Alliance services.
Councillor Mallon (O-23) from 7/30/2019

19-103. Report on the cost and feasibility of installing a full traffic signal or a pedestrian-activated HAWK signal at the intersection of Garfield Street and Massachusetts Avenue.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone (O-33) from 7/30/2019

19-106. Report on conducting City directed environmental testing on the Sullivan Courthouse building and water in basement, to determine the risk posed to the public, and provide a timeline of completion and to establish an operational understanding directly with DCAMM officials and ask for a state designee for communication/coordination on how the building will be secured and monitored.
Councillor Toomey, Councillor Mallon (O-5) from 9/9/2019

19-107. Report on providing an update on the Danehy Park homicide investigation and the status of overall park safety efforts including the lighting of pathways within the park.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Siddiqui (O-6) from 9/9/2019

19-108. Report on efforts to keep bus stops appropriately accessible for buses, to include relevant pavement markings and enforcement activity.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Toomey (O-7) from 9/9/2019

19-109. Report on reviewing speeds on Raymond Street, have Raymond Street and adjacent streets posted at 20 MPH as soon as possible and provide a schedule of 20 MPH sign installations citywide.  See Mgr #6
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-9) from 9/9/2019

19-111. Report on adding links on the Inspectional Services Department website for archived and pending permit records on the appropriate platform.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone (O-12) from 9/9/2019

19-112. Report on the feasibility of allowing taxicabs to use dedicated bus lanes throughout the City while executing service for fare-paying passengers.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Simmons (O-13) from 9/9/2019

19-113. Report on determining whether Boston's Airbnb registration requirements, to include public display of the unit's registration number on the rental platform, could be utilized to maximize compliance and enforcement efforts in Cambridge.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toomey (O-16) from 9/9/2019

19-114. Report on the cost implications and the definition of net zero ready buildings as it relates to the AHOD ordinance.
Councillor Zondervan (O-18) from 9/9/2019

19-115. Report on contacting DCAM to test and to provide definitive answers re: Sullivan Courthouse
Councillor Simmons (O-22) from 9/9/2019

19-116. Report on the status of the truck safety ordinance, and if it will be in front of the City Council before the end of this term.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan (O-1) from 9/16/2019

19-117. Report on the data from the Summer 2019 meals program, including participation rates and number of meals served.
Councillor Mallon (O-3) from 9/16/2019

19-118. Report on establishing a series of forums designed to inform Cambridge seniors about the recent wave of financial scams that they must be mindful of, with information as to how they can best protect themselves.
Councillor Simmons (O-8) from 9/16/2019

19-119. Report on creating a new water feature in one of Cambridge’s parks for the summer of 2021 and to construct said water feature in a way that conserves water as much as possible and is minimally impactful to the environment.
Mayor McGovern (O-9) from 9/16/2019

19-120. Report on directing enforcement resources towards Bishop Allen Drive and other corridors with lots of vehicular idling and work with rideshare companies to ask them to develop technologies solutions to help alert drivers to the fact that they are illegally idling.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-10) from 9/16/2019

19-123. Report on the feasibility of closing some portion of Harvard Square to vehicular traffic on a select number of days during the summer of 2020 to have open market-style events.
Councillor Mallon, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan (O-1) from 10/7/2019

19-124. Report on the legal authority of the City to ban the use of natural gas in newly constructed buildings.
Councillor Zondervan (O-3) from 10/7/2019

19-125. Report on the number of free MBTA passes issued to CRLS students in FY20 and to consider expanding the program to include qualifying Cambridge residents of high school age.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern (O-6) from 10/7/2019

19-126. Report on reviewing the language for Fuel pump warning labels.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-7) from 10/7/2019

19-127. Report on instituting regularly scheduled public conversations between Public Utilities' representatives from Eversource, the Water Dept. Comcast, Verizon and any other appropriate entities to keep the City and public informed.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone (O-8) from 10/7/2019

19-128. Report on allocating more funds in the FY21 budget to Inspectional Services and on the feasibility of providing monetary compensation to homeowners who have had to self-finance traps and what funds could be allocated in the future to help homeowners buy traps.
Councillor Toomey (O-11) from 10/7/2019

19-129. Report on considering directing a portion of future PILOT funds into the Affordable Housing Trust starting in FY21.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan (O-13) from 10/7/2019

19-130. Report on requesting to allocate more funds in the FY21 budget for the small business improvement grants and to confer with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office on whether other cities in Massachusetts have been facing similar issues with ADA compliance and what can be done to protect the small businesses.
Councillor Toomey (O-14) from 10/7/2019

19-131. Report on Creating a Director of Arts and Culture Position.
Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Simmons (O-16) from 10/7/2019

19-132. Report on planting new trees in Magazine Beach Park in the Spring of 2020 with a special focus on the eastern end of the park and the grove area.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Mallon (O-18) from 10/7/2019

19-133. Report on the proposed amendments regarding the prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings.
Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-19) from 10/7/2019

19-134. Report on increasing funding to the City’s HomeBridge program so that access to homeownership may be made available to a wider range of incomes, as the program intends.
Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Toomey (O-20) from 10/7/2019

19-136. Report on identifying a suitable location on the City website to house information regarding the Municipal Code and to track non-zoning legislation and amendments.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui (Calendar Item #3) from 10/7/2019

19-137. Report on determining if ISD can be given the authority to issue citations for smoking in non-smoking buildings and to report back to the City Council.
Mayor McGovern (Calendar Item #4) from 10/7/2019

19-138. Report on addressing the previously requested investigation of the possibility of entering into an agreement with TransCanada to obtain up to 100% renewable power for all municipal electricity needs.
Councillor Carlone (Calendar Item #5) from 10/7/2019

19-139. Report on determining whether it would be possible to allow a permitted area for serving alcoholic beverages on Danehy Park property during special community-wide events.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Simmons (Calendar Item #5) from 10/7/2019

19-141. Report on looking into the idea of hiring a social worker in the FY2021 budget for the Central Square Library branch.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor McGovern (Calendar Item #8) from 10/7/2019

19-142. Report on determining the feasibility of expediting the Demolition and Rebuilding permitting process in the event of a natural disaster.
Councillor Mallon (O-1) from 10/21/2019

19-143. Report on the feasibility of piloting a program of assigning additional security officers to work collaboratively with and exclusively within Cambridge Housing Authority premises in and near Central Square and the Port.
Councillor Simmons, Councillor Mallon, Mayor McGovern (O-2) from 10/21/2019

19-144. Report on determining the feasibility of instituting and funding a Fire Cadet Program.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Toomey, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Simmons (O-4) from 10/21/2019

19-145. Report on reviewing all the City’s policies and procedures related to the procurement, installation and disposal of artificial turf.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Zondervan (O-7) from 10/21/2019

19-146. Report on reviewing the existing internal mechanisms for City staffers in all departments to report grievances, to determine if this system is functioning as it should or whether changes should be considered.
Councillor Simmons (O-3) from 10/28/2019

19-147. Report on installing hearing loop technology inside the Sullivan Chamber as part of the upcoming renovations to City Hall, and in other critical City meeting venues wherever possible and other accessibility improvements.
Councillor Zondervan (O-4) from 10/28/2019

19-148. Report on the feasibility of re-instituting a stop light or other major traffic-calming safety measures at the Raymond Street and Walden Street pedestrian crossing.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Siddiqui (O-6) from 10/28/2019

19-149. Report on the feasibility of installing a “Do Not Enter Except Local Residents” or similar sign on Mead Street at Walden Street.
Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Toomey (O-7) from 10/28/2019

19-150. Report on determining Cambridge’s threat level from hate crimes and other related events.
Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui (O-8) from 10/28/2019

19-151. Report on the feasibility of making Porter Square and Massachusetts Avenue between Roseland Street and Beech Street a quick-build Complete Street with bus priority.
Mayor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-10) from 10/28/2019

19-152. Report on identifying a source of funding and a timetable for the design and construction of a modern roundabout at the Brattle-Sparks-Craigie intersection.
Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Carlone (O-3) from 11/4/2019

19-153. Report on plans designed to mitigate the impact of the closing of Windsor House upon Cambridge seniors.
Councillor Simmons, Mayor McGovern (O-4) from 11/4/2019

19-154. Report on the possibility of providing child care for those interested in becoming temporary census takers.
Councillor Kelley (O-6) from 11/4/2019

19-155. Report on changing the surface of the Tudor Street Dog Park to eliminate hazards created by ingestion of small stones from the surface of the park.
Mayor McGovern (O-5) from 10/21/2019

19-156. Report on fully restoring sharrows to Broadway, alongside the new door-zone bike lane, as a reminder to motorists that cyclists are always allowed to take the full lane.
Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-2) from 11/18/2019

19-157. Report on providing an update of when the public Police Dashboard will be fully operational.
Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Kelley, Mayor McGovern (O-1) from 11/25/2019

19-158. Report on allocating the necessary funds to maintain the existing staffing levels and operating hours at the O’Connell Branch Library.
Councillor Toomey, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan (O-3) from 11/25/2019

19-159. Report on ways to review safety and devise any safety interventions at the corner of Saville Street and Walden Street.
Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Devereux (O-4) from 11/25/2019